Incompatible Interests of Some of Those on the Left, Liberty, freedom, and personal r

[OrangeEmpire]

Recently, I have had the displeasure (

) of reading, not only here, but elsewhere, how Democrats support individual freedom and liberty and simultaneously support social entitlement programs. In some situations, I find these two propositions incompatible. They are not entirely mutually exclusive but on occasion I think they contradict each other.

For example, we want people to have freedom and liberty in deciding what to do with their body, such as whether or not to smoke, use or abuse alcohol, what to eat, drink, and who to sleep with. I agree with these propositions. However, what happened to the proposition of personal responsibility and accountability for the consequences of one's liberty?

If I choose to drink myself into a health dilemma, then isn't it a true proposition this consequence is "my fault" and "my alone" and ergo, I alone should be responsible for my plight? If our decisions perpetuate certain consequences, then shouldn't the decision maker be held personally and solely responsible for the consequences resulting from their exercise of liberty?

Yet, social welfare programs, in the way in which they are operated, defy this logic. The programs to some extent exonerate the individual of being held 100% responsible and in some instances completely exculpate the individual.

Hence, it makes no sense to me to advocate personal liberty and freedom but simultaneously espouse social welfare programs which alleviate or completely exonerate an individual from the responsibility of the consequences of this liberty.

Perhaps someone else can make some sense of it all? Please enlighten me.

Thoughts?

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

It's like this. When Clinton wanted to invade Somalia and Kosovo, the Repubs were up in arms and against it. So, bottom line, if the prez of one party wants something the opposing party will oppose. It's politics and both parties are guilty of being hypocrits. Both parties no longer represent us, they represent themselves and work to further their political careers and the wealth and power of their party. Trying to make sense out of this is nuts.

The Repubs are currently as liberal as the Dems were. Hell, Bush and Teddy Kennedy are team-mates in this illegal alien amnesty disaster. Bush has increased entitlements, size of government, decreased personal freedom and is waging a war that was never declared (not enough grounds to declare I guess). We have become a militaristic country rather than a country that defends. The world is wary of us. Repubs wouldn't have been responsible for these actions 30 years ago and in fact fought against similar.

Google Ron Paul, check his youtube videos, his appearances on Colbert and whatever Jon Stewart's show is called. This guy is as close to a republican as you can get, yet GOP voters (neocons, dixiecrats) don't get it.

 

[jdsa]

Perhaps someone else can make some sense of it all? Please enlighten me.

Thoughts?

I don't think I can enlighten you, but. . .

From a practical perpective, I think pretty much all politicians of both parties support social security, etc. because of the massive amount of income it generates for government. Voting to end these programs would cause taxes to increase in other areas.

From a more ideological perspective, I think the reason for these programs is that you have to keep giving people chances even if they don't deserve it. That's just part of being a good christian, imo. Large programs are just a way of making sure that everyone carries their load in that regard.

Of course, the counterpoint to that question would have to be, why does inherited wealth or money excuse all of a person's failings. I can understand having an alcohol or drug problem, and then overcoming it. But I'm not sure why that should qualify anyone for the presidency, just because that individual has powerful friends and lots of family wealth. What about the straight-arrows who've done everything by the book and will never get there because of deficiencies in the friend/inheritance department.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

So the confusion comes from the idea that, not only could people have an enjoyable life and plenty of nice things for themselves and also spend some time and give some of their prosperity to others who have come to a less desirable place in life, but that people would actually want to temper themselves a little and help someone out.

Not so much a silly idea but is it relevant? I agree, more people need to be charitable. However, my question is how can one espouse individual freedom, which is intrinsically and inherently linked to the notion of individual responsibility for the consequences of this freedom, and simultaneously assert the need for social welfare programs, to assist those to evade the consequences of their liberty?

The necessary result is liberty without responsibility. Does such a proposition actually make sense? Yet, it is a proposition being defended by most democrats. Have they for a moment stopped and pondered the proposition they are defending? Have they for a moment stopped and asked if this proposition is sensible?

So the man who excessively drinks alcohol, to the point they are too sick to work, develop liver problems and perhaps liver disease, and have another individual pay for it through social entitlement programs, is not contradictory?

Who is responsible for his abuse of alcohol which led to these consequences? Is there anybody else to be held accountable? With individual liberty comes individual responsibility and so, it seems to me, in this example, social welfare programs are incompatible with individual liberty and the responsibility associated with it. Do you disagree? Why?

 

[JTrainDavis]

I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian. I don't really agree with gay marriage, or abortion, but neither of these things affects my day to day life in any way. So i am indifferent.

I do disagree with free health care and housing for those who choose not to work. But i also despise the Patriot Act, and it's invasion of my privacy, though i would rather be rid of the bottom feeders who live off the system before the Patriot Act.

I also despise the Immigration plan, where those who willfully broke the law of the land will be rewarded with citizenship. I blame this on politico's working for votes rather than the good of the nation. Being rewarded for breaking the law, is garbage. My (garbage despised) Senator Dodd should call me and say that as a result of my DWI 3 years ago, i don't have to pay income tax anymore. Since we're rewarding people for breaking the law, how about making it universal.

 

[jdsa]

Who is responsible for his abuse of alcohol which led to these consequences? Is there anybody else to be held accountable? With individual liberty comes individual responsibility and so, it seems to me, in this example, social welfare programs are incompatible with individual liberty and the responsibility associated with it. Do you disagree? Why?

My point is more that some people can completely screw up for a good portion of their lives and still get ahead without having really earned it -- our current president being a fairly good example.

In general I agree with what your saying, but I don't believe that whatever sort of meritocracy we are living in should be absolute. For reasons related to the above, I don't think the playing field will ever be absolutely level. Not that I'm railing against that sort of entitlement, but if you're going to have people getting ahead based on who their parents are and how much money they've inherited, as opposed to purely obejctive measurements of ability and responisbility, then you need to cut some slack to those who aren't as fortunate.

It's not that I disagree with what you're saying. Of course, if someone drinks themself into oblivion, that's their problem and theirs alone adn whatever support they can extract from scoiety at large (gov't handouts, churches, etc) should be tenuous at best.

 

[volinbham]

The inherent tension is between individual freedom (and responsibilty) and a belief the government should "level the playing field". Government entitlements go beyond the idea of a safety net to attempt to make all equal. That is a contradiction to the notion of individualism (abilities and responsibilities).

Of course the conservative side is equally contradictory in it's abhorrance of big government but the desire to have government reward/punish particular individual behaviors.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The inherent tension is between individual freedom (and responsibilty) and a belief the government should "level the playing field". Government entitlements go beyond the idea of a safety net to attempt to make all equal. That is a contradiction to the notion of individualism (abilities and responsibilities).

Of course the conservative side is equally contradictory in it's abhorrance of big government but the desire to have government reward/punish particular individual behaviors.

:thumbsup: