Personally, I think its because they've got more money. ;)

Why Conservatives Are Happier
George F. Will
February 23, 2006
A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals - in all income groups. Although 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared to 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.

Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole

Continued-link should work for two weeks (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-will0223.artfeb23,0,7531103.story)

Someone's going to say it, might as well be me. Ignorance is bliss. :p

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised - they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith government, they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity - it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.


That's the most upside-down thing I've ever read. The people who thought Iraq would be a "cake walk", that increasing spending while decreasing revenue would lead to less debt, who thought that ignoring the UN and attacking Iraq would improve our image in the world, lead to a more stable Mideast, and decrease anti-Americanism, who truely believed that, if reelected, Bush would cut spending, can't possibly claim to be right more often than not about the course of events. They're almost always wrong.

And to say that pessimistic conservatives put not their faith government is equally nuts. They believe that the government should be given complete and total power to do as it pleases, and that the people shouldn't ever question the government, that no investigations should be done, no questions raised, no press released unless it benefits the government, that no civil liberty should be respected, no Constitutional limitation on government kept in piece.

WHat a load of crap.

From the article:

"Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised - they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith government, they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity - it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver."

If, as Will says here, conservatives have a different conception of happiness than do liberals, a comparison of conservatives and liberal based on how happy they say they are is self-evidently meaningless.

Will destroys the basic premise of his own argument, which isn't surprising since he's a conservative.

Conservatives are mostly white people who aren't poor. Why wouldn't they be happy?

If, as Will says here, conservatives have a different conception of happiness than do liberals, a comparison of conservatives and liberal based on how happy they say they are is self-evidently meaningless.

Not really, assuming -- as Will seemed to-- that happiness is a simply a state of mind. The converse of what you're saying is just silly: Someone says they're happy, and you're going to come along and tell them they're not? :p

Not really, assuming -- as Will seemed to-- that happiness is a simply a state of mind. The converse of what you're saying is just silly: Someone says they're happy, and you're going to come along and tell them they're not? :p

As far as I can tell, his "data" consists of a comparison of people who "call themselves "very happy"".

Will writes: "only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared to 47 percent of conservative Republicans."

But Will also explains that liberals have a different conception of happiness than do conservatives. So there's no reason to believe that they are talking about the same thing when they say they are "very happy." And if they're not talking about the same thing, then the comparison -- which assumes a unified criteria called "happiness" -- is worthless.

(Apart from that, when someone says he/she is "very happy," that is an expression (like "I'm in pain" or "ooooowww, that hurts"), not a description. So a comparison based on that criteria is inherently meaningless in any event. Will should read Wittgenstein.

BooRadley's post in this thread is a perfect example of why liberals are unhappy. Because they're always pissed off at everyone.

If we take conservatism to mean capitalism, and liberalism to mean socialism, then the fundamental difference between the two is that conservatives believe that life is generally fair and that you deserve what you get. Liberals believe that life is unfair and that it's the government's job to take from those who have, because they don't deserve it, and give to those who don't. It's really no surprise, then, that liberals are unhappy. Believing that life is unfair and everyone who has anything must have stolen it is a very pessimistic way to live.

Conservatives are mostly white people who aren't poor.

LOL.

I love liberals.
depending on their needs conservatives are either the "Rich, white elite"
Or "uneducated yokels from the south".
I mean really.. how many "red states" comments were made right here on this website?
So which is it? are conservatives stupid white trash from the south or are they rich white people without a care in the world?

If we take conservatism to mean capitalism, and liberalism to mean socialism

. . . then you start with a false premise, so all of your conclusions will be wrong, which would explain why George Will makes sense to you.

But Will also explains that liberals have a different conception of happiness than do conservatives.

So what? Which part of opinion poll are you struggling with?

So there's no reason to believe that they are talking about the same thing when they say they are "very happy."

LOL, what? By this curious logic you're saying that no comparision of this sort is ever possible on any topic. If someone thinks the current president is a good president he has a different conception of what makes a good president vs. someone who thinks the current president is a bad one. If someone thinks the war in Iraq is a good war they have a different conception of what makes a good war from someone who thinks the war in Iraq is a bad one. :rolleyes:

And if they're not talking about the same thing, then the comparison -- which assumes a unified criteria called "happiness" -- is worthless.

Hogwash. How people feel about themselves and their prospects is decidely not worthless, for better or worse. I'm thinking in particular about the work Martin E.P. Seligman has done with optimism vs. pessimism.

Will should read Wittgenstein.

I believe he has a Ph.D in philosophy, so he probably has.

LOL, what? By this curious logic


It was WIll's curious logic. He made a claim that "happiness" doesn't mean the same thing to rightwingers as it does to normal people. If this is true, then the comparison is pointless. If it's false, then the author is pointless.

. . . then you start with a false premise, so all of your conclusions will be wrong, which would explain why George Will makes sense to you.

are you suggesting that conservatives aren't capitalist and that liberals aren't socialist?

are you suggesting that conservatives aren't capitalist and that liberals aren't socialist?

Yes. That's what I'm suggesting.

Oh, in case you don't know what socialism is:


Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/S0525000.html

I know a lot of liberals. I don't know any socialists. (Though I have in the past, I'm not currently friends with anyone who's a socialist).

If we take conservatism to mean capitalism, and liberalism to mean socialism...

Which would be utter nonsense. Conservativism is a general bias towards the status quo and traditional institutions. Liberalism is a general bias towards individual liberty and not restrained by tradional or orthodox beliefs and institutions. The reason everyone has the meanings of these words ass backwards is because "conservative" has been conflated with "Republican Party" and "liberal" is conflated with "Democratic Party."

So what? Which part of opinion poll are you struggling with?



LOL, what? By this curious logic you're saying that no comparision of this sort is ever possible on any topic. If someone thinks the current president is a good president he has a different conception of what makes a good president vs. someone who thinks the current president is a bad one. If someone thinks the war in Iraq is a good war they have a different conception of what makes a good war from someone who thinks the war in Iraq is a bad one. :rolleyes:



Hogwash. How people feel about themselves and their prospects is decidely not worthless, for better or worse. I'm thinking in particular about the work Martin E.P. Seligman has done with optimism vs. pessimism.



I believe he has a Ph.D in philosophy, so he probably has.

It's pretty simple:

According to Will, what a conservative means by "I'm happy" is different than what a liberal means by "I'm happy."

Therefore, it's ridiculous to believe that a significant comparison can be made by comparing the number of liberals who say it to the number of conservatives who say it.

Futhermore, saying "I'm happy" isn't (logically) a description of anything, such as a "state of mind." It has no stable reference, and that's another (but related) reason why the comparison is pointless.

This is one of the dumber articles I've seen by Will, who is normally pretentiously empty rather than stupidly empty.

If we take conservatism to mean capitalism, and liberalism to mean socialism
...which is ridiculous, but conveniently self-serving.
fundamental difference between the two is that conservatives believe that life is generally fair and that you deserve what you get. Liberals believe that life is unfair
I'm sure the rich conservatives feel that way, but do the poor ones? What if, for the sake of argument, life is unfair? What if, furthermore, it is that way not because of any fundamental necessity but because we have made it that way? Is the belief that life is fair and people get what they deserve of equal merit to its opposite, or is it self-delusion? Would treating it as equal be reasonable, or just relativism? One must first evaluate reality before evaluating beliefs about that reality.
and that it's the government's job to take from those who have
To put it in a less slanted and obnoxious way, liberals believe that the government has a role in ensuring that money doesn't flow from those who do deserve it to those who don't. Believe it or not, liberals believe just as much as conservatives that people should get what they deserve. They just make a distinction between deserving and having. Being rich is not inherently ennobling, and neither is being poor.

It was WIll's curious logic. He made a claim that "happiness" doesn't mean the same thing to rightwingers as it does to normal people.

He offered this as an explanation as to why they say they are happy or unhappy.

Let's get this straight: Are you actually saying that the terms "happy" and "unhappy" have no common meaning? And, thus, when someone say's they're happy (or unhappy) that no one else in the world has any idea what they're talking about?

If this is true, then the comparison is pointless.

See my earlier post. You're saying no opinion polls are worthwhile. After all, everyone has a different conception of everything.

:rolleyes: Well if you guys are just going to go around making up definitions for words, then there's no point in talking to you.

Social security, medicare, welfare, and medicaid are all socialist programs, and they're all direct contributions of the American left. But if you wanna say they left isn't socialist, then you can just go on mentally masturbating each other.

Yeah, how dare you guys bring a dictionary definition into this? Don't you know facts aren't welcome, and only spin matters, and "leading a discussion" means accusing people of mental masturbation as one quits in a fit of frustration?

:rolleyes: Well if you guys are just going to go around making up definitions for words, then there's no point in talking to you.

Social security, medicare, welfare, and medicaid are all socialist programs, and they're all direct contributions of the American left. But if you wanna say they left isn't socialist, then you can just go on mentally masturbating each other.

Hey, I'm using the dictionary. It's a bit more clear than a muddled conflation of "conservative=GOP=right" and "left=liberal=DP". The free market is a liberal ideal.

Well if the liberals in America are so much in support of individual liberties, then why do they want to take away 90% of my paycheck to try and solve every problem with new government programs? That doesn't conform to the free market ideal.

:rolleyes: Well if you guys are just going to go around making up definitions for words, then there's no point in talking to you.


I gave you the AHD definition. If one of the two of us is making up meanings to words, it's not me. I'm using the meaning of the word 'socialist' as the meaning of the word 'socialst'. I'm not sure what you're using.


Social security, medicare, welfare, and medicaid are all socialist programs


No more than the Armed Forces, city, county, state or federal police, fire departments, public parks, public schools, public utilities, the military industrial complex, or Haliburton's dealings in Iraq.

If having a number of programs funded by the public is socialism, then "conservatives" are red as hell.

I don't know you, Feenix, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying that 90% is an exaggeration. Federal income tax rates are less than half of that even for the very richest people, with state/municipal and sales/excise and all the rest insufficient to make up the difference.

On a different note, have you considered the difference between liberty and money? Economic rights are not the only ones we have. Free speech, for example, is not a matter of money - as much as some people keep trying to make it that way. Many of our rights are "inalienable" which specifically means (uh oh, dictionary stuff again) that they can't be bartered away even if we might want to. We live in a finite world where different rights held by different people inevitably conflict, and many believe that in such cases economic rights often must yield to others. Those taxes aren't just thrown into a black hole, you know, not unless the Republicans control the White House and Congress anyway. They're your payment on a social contract under which as much as possible - but never all - of your and everyone else's rights are preserved. You pay so that others can live freely and enjoy the opportunities that life in this country affords, just as others pay - and paid, back to when you were born and before - so you could do the same. That's the deal. If you don't like it, one kind of freedom you have is the freedom to leave. Have you checked air fares to Utopia recently?

Well if the liberals in America are so much in support of individual liberties, then why do they want to take away 90% of my paycheck to try and solve every problem with new government programs? That doesn't conform to the free market ideal.

You know that saying - RINO: Republicans in Name Only? Well, just because someone calls himself liberal, doesn't mean they are in the real sense of the word. Being a member of the DP doesn't make you liberal.

Conservatives are mostly white people who aren't poor. Why wouldn't they be happy?

^ What an ignorant and racist statement.

Real conservatives (which should be distinguished from the Big Gubmint members of the GOP who only play conservatives on TV) stand for individual responsibility as the counterpart to individual liberty. When one takes responsibility for one's life, one is far more serene. Taking the trouble to deal with the things that are under one's control and to let go of the rest is a joyful way to live.

I don't know you, Feenix, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying that 90% is an exaggeration. Federal income tax rates are less than half of that even for the very richest people, with state/municipal and sales/excise and all the rest insufficient to make up the difference.


The point I was making (if it wasn't obvious) was that if the Democrats were in charge, then 90% of my paycheck WOULD be going to taxes. Because the Democrat answer to everything is tax, tax, tax.


On a different note, have you considered the difference between liberty and money? Economic rights are not the only ones we have. Free speech, for example, is not a matter of money - as much as some people keep trying to make it that way. Many of our rights are "inalienable" which specifically means (uh oh, dictionary stuff again) that they can't be bartered away even if we might want to. We live in a finite world where different rights held by different people inevitably conflict, and many believe that in such cases economic rights often must yield to others. Those taxes aren't just thrown into a black hole, you know, not unless the Republicans control the White House and Congress anyway. They're your payment on a social contract under which as much as possible - but never all - of your and everyone else's rights are preserved. You pay so that others can live freely and enjoy the opportunities that life in this country affords, just as others pay - and paid, back to when you were born and before - so you could do the same. That's the deal. If you don't like it, one kind of freedom you have is the freedom to leave. Have you checked air fares to Utopia recently?


Oh, joy, it's the good ol' "you signed a social contract and you can leave if you don't like it" argument. That one got old a loooong time ago. I never signed a social contract, and you sure as hell don't have any right to take over control of my homeland and tell me to leave if I don't like it.

I earned my paycheck, and just because a majority of voters voted for a socialist, that doesn't give him any right to take it away, with or without your imaginary "social contract", which most so-called liberals seem to make up as they go along.

If having a number of programs funded by the public is socialism, then "conservatives" are red as hell.

The GOP certainly is in support of big government and doesn't care much for individual liberty. There is a lot of real conservative critique of the GOP.

I earned my paycheck, and just because a majority of voters voted for a socialist, that doesn't give him any right to take it away, with or without your immaginary "social contract", which most so-called liberals seem to make up as they go along.


I really love this example of Lefty hypocrisy. The same people who say one should just suck it up and pay taxes because a plurality favor taking one's money for their own purposes also say we should never execute a convicted murderer because an innocent person may be put to death.

Why is the individual taxpayer given less consideration than the individual murderer?

You know that saying - RINO: Republicans in Name Only? Well, just because someone calls himself liberal, doesn't mean they are in the real sense of the word. Being a member of the DP doesn't make you liberal.

So where are the liberals?

Oh, joy, it's the good ol' "you signed a social contract and you can leave if you don't like it" argument. That one got old a loooong time ago. I never signed a social contract, and you sure as hell don't have any right to take over control of my homeland and tell me to leave if I don't like it.

I earned my paycheck, and just because a majority of voters voted for a socialist, that doesn't give him any right to take it away, with or without your imaginary "social contract", which most so-called liberals seem to make up as they go along.

Our form of government was laregely based on the philosophies of people like Locke, who based his philosophy on the idea of a social contract. It's more or less built into our Constitution.

So where are the liberals?

In numerous places. A lot are more aligned with the libertarians. There are some real liberals in the DP and GOP I'm sure, and liberal independents. A real liberal is distrustful of authority and biased towards individual sovereignity, so would not seek to establish a huge, powerful government to control everyone. A better term for the people who seek to remodel society with huge government force based on egalitarian ideals is progressive.

Our form of government was laregely based on the philosophies of people like Locke, who based his philosophy on the idea of a social contract. It's more or less built into our Constitution.

I disagree. The founders wrote the Constitution based on the ideal of limited government. The Constitution doesn't say anything about social programs, especially the kind of massive social programs that consume two thirds of the federal budget that we have today.

In numerous places. A lot are more aligned with the libertarians. There are some real liberals in the DP and GOP I'm sure, and liberal independents. A real liberal is distrustful of authority and biased towards individual sovereignity, so would not seek to establish a huge, powerful government to control everyone. A better term for the people who seek to remodel society with huge government force based on egalitarian ideals is progressive.

I don't think the people who took the survey about happiness share your definition of the word "liberal". I'm sure that they meant "Democrat".

I disagree. The founders wrote the Constitution based on the ideal of limited government. The Constitution doesn't say anything about social programs, especially the kind of massive social programs that consume two thirds of the federal budget that we have today.


I was talking about the concept of a social contract, not about social programs. And the federal budget doesn't come down under "conservative" governments.


I don't think the people who took the survey about happiness share your definition of the word "liberal". I'm sure that they meant "Democrat".

And I don't think they meand "socialist" when they said "liberal", either.

I don't think the people who took the survey about happiness share your definition of the word "liberal". I'm sure that they meant "Democrat".

It's not my personal definition. It's based on the historical root of liberalism, which is based around the support of individual liberty.

I was talking about the concept of a social contract, not about social programs.


The social contract is your justification for social programs. One cannot exist without the other.


And the federal budget doesn't come down under "conservative" governments.


The overall budget doesn't get smaller, but the proportion being spent on social programs does. Just because "conservatives" jack up military spending, that doesn't imply that they support social programs.


And I don't think they meand "socialist" when they said "liberal", either.

I do.

It's not my personal definition. It's based on the historical root of liberalism, which is based around the support of individual liberty.

ok. i know that. but wouldn't you agree that society's definition of the word "liberal" has changed over the years?

The social contract is your justification for social programs. One cannot exist without the other.


http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/S0524400.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract


The overall budget doesn't get smaller, but the proportion being spent on social programs does. Just because "conservatives" jack up military spending, that doesn't imply that they support social programs.


So? Instead of giving your money to poor people, they give it to rich people. How is that any better, or any less socialist?


I do.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/S0525000.html

The overall budget doesn't get smaller, but the proportion being spent on social programs does. Just because "conservatives" jack up military spending, that doesn't imply that they support social programs.

The GOP politicians in general support massive pork spending to gain support of voters back home. They choose subsidies for supportive corporations instead of the free market. This is one of the things early liberals strongly opposed - government privileges for particular businesses.

The point I was making (if it wasn't obvious) was that if the Democrats were in charge, then 90% of my paycheck WOULD be going to taxes.
So you claim, but you don't seem to have any rational reason for believing it.
Oh, joy, it's the good ol' "you signed a social contract and you can leave if you don't like it" argument. That one got old a loooong time ago.
Yeah, just like the Constitution got old. Here's what Jefferson had to say about a social contract in the declaration of independence (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
That's a social contract right there. The founding fathers accepted the idea; why can't you? Your obstinate refusal to accept an argument doesn't make it any less valid.
I never signed a social contract
Wow, talk about an argument that got old a long time ago! I've seen about a hundred debates that started that way. Every single time someone has to point out that "social contract" in this context is not a legal term of art but a philosophical one with its own separate (and longer) history, that you have been benefiting from that contract since before you were capable of consent, etc. Those arguments are quite compelling even if you're too stubborn to understand or accept them. Here's a radical idea; if you want to argue about social contracts, why don't you go read Locke and Hume and Mill and Rousseau (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm) so you'll actually have some idea what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself with pseudo-legalistic hogwash?
and you sure as hell don't have any right to take over control of my homeland and tell me to leave if I don't like it.
Ditto. I live here too. I'm a citizen too. I've probably contributed more to this country than you have, so my right to stay here is as great as yours. My remark was a deliberate riff on the "love it or leave it" BS that usually comes from the right, in case it wasn't obvious. :rolleyes:
I earned my paycheck, and just because a majority of voters voted for a socialist, that doesn't give him any right to take it away
Again, that sword cuts both ways if you replace "socialist" with "fascist" or any other prejudicial term to make it clear we're talking about your ideas rather than mine. Just because a majority voted for George W. Bush (if indeed they did) doesn't mean anyone can the violate the constitution by taking away my rights and/or denying the government its prerogatives, and that includes doing so by precluding any means by which those rights and prerogatives are enforced. The government does in fact have constitutionally mandated rights which are also duties to do certain things, and to do them it requires resources. They absolutely have the right to acquire those via taxation, because your property rights don't mean squat outside of the very same moral and constitutional context under which government does what it is required and elected to do. Your property rights do not trump every other right held by every other member of society. You're a citizen, not a king.

ok. i know that. but wouldn't you agree that society's definition of the word "liberal" has changed over the years?

No, people in America have just become confused. In Europe, I believe they still use correct terms.

Everyone opposes pork.... and everyone pushes for it. That's a failing of the way our Congress was created. Each Congressman is accountable only to his or her own constituents, but can spend everyone's money. :(

Tha's got nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal. That's just a fatal flaw in the whole system.

Why is the individual taxpayer given less consideration than the individual murderer?
That's a fair question, but one that ignores a distinction between different kinds of rights. The right to life and the right to property are not fundamentally equivalent, so neither are the two scenarios. Is it really so bizarre that killing someone is considered different than taking a fraction of their property, or does it only seem bizarre in light of a certain ultra-materialist dogma? If the two kinds of rights are not equivalent, then your comparison is between apples and oranges. I prefer oranges.

Excessive taxation is most often used by the government to deprive individuals of liberty, fuel corruption and fund very illiberal projects, such as aggressive warfare. It is for this reason that I think even those who value social liberties more than economic liberties should be extremely wary of excessive taxation.

So you claim, but you don't seem to have any rational reason for believing it.


How about listening to Democrats talk? Is that rational enough for you?


Yeah, just like the Constitution got old. Your obstinate refusal to accept an argument doesn't make it any less valid.

Wow, talk about an argument that got old a long time ago! I've seen about a hundred debates that started that way. Every single time someone has to point out that "social contract" in this context is not a legal term of art but a philosophical one with its own separate (and longer) history, that you have been benefiting from that contract since before you were capable of consent, etc.


The whole idea of the social contract is that everyone agrees to it. If you don't need my consent to take my belongings (as you're implying with your arguments) then you shouldn't be calling it a contract.


Those arguments are quite compelling even if you're too stubborn to understand or accept them. Here's a radical idea; if you want to argue about social contracts, why don't you go read Locke and Hume and Mill and Rousseau (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm) so you'll actually have some idea what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself with pseudo-legalistic hogwash?


Debate the post, not the poster.


Ditto. I live here too. I'm a citizen too. I've probably contributed more to this country than you have,


What makes you think that? You don't know me. You don't know what I do for a living. You don't know jack squat about me. So stop assuming. And stop trying to defame my character. Debate the ideas.


so my right to stay here is as great as yours. My remark was a deliberate riff on the "love it or leave it" BS that usually comes from the right, in case it wasn't obvious. :rolleyes:


Straw man. I never said "love it or leave it". You're the one who said that. Were you making a "deliberate riff" on yourself?


Again, that sword cuts both ways if you replace "socialist" with "fascist" or any other prejudicial term to make it clear we're talking about your ideas rather than mine.


No, it doesn't. If a fascist got elected, I would be saying he has no right to execute me in a gas chamber, not take my paycheck. Socialists do that.


Just because a majority voted for George W. Bush (if indeed they did) doesn't mean anyone can the violate the constitution by taking away my rights and/or denying the government its prerogatives, and that includes doing so by precluding any means by which those rights and prerogatives are enforced. The government does in fact have constitutionally mandated rights which are also duties to do certain things, and to do them it requires resources. They absolutely have the right to acquire those via taxation, because your property rights don't mean squat outside of the very same moral and constitutional context under which government does what it is required and elected to do. Your property rights do not trump every other right held by every other member of society. You're a citizen, not a king.

The government has a constitutionally mandated responsibility to defend the country, and collecting taxes for that purpose is perfectly acceptable. This often includes making payments to defense contractors and the like. Everyone agrees on that point. (at least everyone here) My point is that the government doesn't have a right to take money from me and give it to someone else, just to give it to them because you feel sorry for them.

The right to life and the right to property are not fundamentally equivalent


What's really odd is that so many of the people who claim that money is more important than life also claim to be Christians. Kind of odd considering what Christianity teaches about wealth and life.

Conservatives are mostly white people who aren't poor. Why wouldn't they be happy?

The southern black community is far less affluent than the northern white community, yet is far more conservative. How do you explain that?

The whole idea of the social contract is that everyone agrees to it.
Wrong. The social contract is encoded in a consitution and maintained by a majority. Unanimity is neither required nor possible.
If you don't need my consent to take my belongings (as you're implying with your arguments) then you shouldn't be calling it a contract.
Did you just totally miss the distinction between legal vs. philosophical terms of art? What's the point of trying to "debate the post" when relevant and substantive arguments are simply ignored?
Debate the post, not the poster.
That's exactly what I was doing. I was providing you with background material which is entirely relevant to what we're discussing because it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion without that context. When you say "social contract" without recognizing that phrase's historical antecedents, you're not debating the post either.
Debate the ideas.
Express some.
The government has a constitutionally mandated responsibility to defend the country, and collecting taxes for that purpose is perfectly acceptable. This often includes making payments to defense contractors and the like. Everyone agrees on that point. (at least everyone here) My point is that the government doesn't have a right to take money from me and give it to someone else, just to give it to them because you feel sorry for them.
Your arguments so far, such as they are, have not been limited to taking money and giving it to someone else but have been applied to taking in general. Should I take the attempted subject change as a concession that the government is in fact justified in some takings, which might include those necessary to discharge their constitutional duties toward preservation of rights and general welfare? If not, you're off topic. If so, then we're done because nobody except you has been talking about wealth redistribution for its own sake.

It was WIll's curious logic. He made a claim that "happiness" doesn't mean the same thing to rightwingers as it does to normal people. If this is true, then the comparison is pointless. If it's false, then the author is pointless.

That's bogus. The people were not asked what their definition of happiness was. They were asked if they were happy. While there is no objective definition of happiness, it is clear that conservatives have more of it than liberals do, and this fits with my own observations. In this case, the only good way to measure a subjective feeling is by self-reporting. You do the same thing by asking people how much pain they are in during a drug trial. Each person's experience of pain is subjective, but with a large enough sample, you can state with a fair amount of certainty that one drug works better on pain than another drug.

Wrong. The social contract is encoded in a consitution and maintained by a majority. Unanimity is neither required nor possible.


wrong. you think it's "encoded"?? that must be a pretty good code, because i haven't been able to decipher it!


Did you just totally miss the distinction between legal vs. philosophical terms of art? What's the point of trying to "debate the post" when relevant and substantive arguments are simply ignored?


I ignore it because it's nonsense. I've read up on the "social contract". Contrary to what you'd like to believe, you're not the only one who can read. And what I've read includes the idea that everyone "agrees" to abide by the contract.


nobody except you has been talking about wealth redistribution for its own sake.

That's what socialism is. That's what we're talking about.

wwhat I've read includes the idea that everyone "agrees" to abide by the contract.
OK, show me. Back up that claim, please, instead of making a mere appeal to (anonymous) authority. Is that "debating the post" enough?
That's what socialism is.
Already refuted above. Wouldn't "debating the post" require that you actually address things that have already been said instead of trying to ignore or dismiss them (e.g. with "mental masturbation" or "got old")?

OK, show me. Back up that claim, please, instead of making a mere appeal to (anonymous) authority. Is that "debating the post" enough?

Already refuted above. Wouldn't "debating the post" require that you actually address things that have already been said instead of trying to ignore or dismiss them (e.g. with "mental masturbation" or "got old")?

I'm under no obligation to address everything you say. If I say that my butt smells like roses, I wouldn't expect you to address that point with an essay refuting it.

And just because you say something, that doesn't mean I have to change my mind to agree with you.

As for the social contract, it is not built into the US Constitution, and even it if was, that still wouldn't mean that I have to agree with it.

Social Contract (http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/S0524400.html)
An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.


Constitution (http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/C0590100.html)

The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.


In the old days, you weren't a citizen upon birth, but had to make an oath. Now it's assumed. If you don't agree to the social contract created in the Constitution, you can always give up your citizen ship. It was foisted on you at birth, you are right, without you agreeing to it.

But the law provides for you to forswear it.

PlatyGuy, I think the big reason why you and I cannot see eye to eye is that you believe in "the collective" and I don't. You believe what Rousseau wrote, and I believe what Ayn Rand wrote.

So, to you, there's a big difference between redistributing wealth and collective ownership of wealth. To me, there is no difference, because there's no such thing as "the collective". The wealth has to be controlled by someone whether that individual had to win an election or not...

That's a fair question, but one that ignores a distinction between different kinds of rights. The right to life and the right to property are not fundamentally equivalent, so neither are the two scenarios.


That is a disputed belief. The right to property is a fundamental right just as important as the right to life. Take someone's property is the same as seizing the hours/days/months/years of his life that he spent earning it. Once that time is gone, it is unrecoverable - just as a death is so. It might not be as extreme, but property rights and liberty are two facets of the same thing.

Our government exists for a reason, for those of you who are unaware.


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.

The general welfare statement is misinterpreted. They didn't mean that it's the duty of the government to make sure that everyone is financially fine.

Madison: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Cons are happier cause "out perfect government that god wanted, is leading us all the right direction!!...YAY!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!"...
Ignorance is bliss

Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

I wish he had written that into the document himself.

Too bad Jefferson was overseas when the Constitution was written... It's amazing how much a little detail like that can shape the outcome of history.

The general welfare statement is misinterpreted. They didn't mean that it's the duty of the government to make sure that everyone is financially fine.

Madison: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

I know. It seems some people don't recognize the idea at all, though.

I know. It seems some people don't recognize the idea at all, though.

Well, what do you think the general welfare statement means?

Well, what do you think the general welfare statement means?

Basically, a strong economy and robust industry that everyone can benefit from. But that goes against what I believe you are arguing, which is that the government should have nothing to do with industry, economy, or wealth.

I know. It seems some people don't recognize the idea at all, though.

Well, where in the Constitution is Congress specifically given the power to create an endless array of social programs?

I'm under no obligation to address everything you say.
No, of course not, but in a reasoned debate your other option is to withdraw claims you can't back up. Until you can identify these books you've read that supposedly say what it's so convenient for you that they say, their existence remains purely hypothetical and they're useless as support for your position.
As for the social contract, it is not built into the US Constitution, and even it if was, that still wouldn't mean that I have to agree with it.
No, you don't have to agree with it, but you do have to respect it because it's the basis of all law including that which protects your property. Disagreeing with it when it's manifest reality like that would be a pretty good example of true mental masturbation.
PlatyGuy, I think the big reason why you and I cannot see eye to eye is that you believe in "the collective" and I don't.
Debate the post, not the poster. While I appreciate your attempt to read my mind, you're not qualified to do so and I don't believe in any "collective" in the sense that you seem to mean it. What I believe in is simply what I quoted from Jefferson above - that governments are instituted among men for a reason. People living under any form of government at all give up a bit of personal sovereignty in return for certain other protections and advantages. That doesn't mean the exchange is entirely voluntary but, as BooRadley has pointed out and as I hinted with my "love it or leave it" remark, you can forswear it if you find the conditions too burdensome.
So, to you, there's a big difference between redistributing wealth and collective ownership of wealth.
That's not the only distinction that matters. There's also a distinction between property and wealth, for example, or between state property and common property (http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html). I don't think government should be either holding or redistributing wealth so much as that some things (e.g. the air we breathe, or our rights) can't or shouldn't be monetized at all. That doesn't mean the government can't assess taxes, fees, or fines and in fact they must do so to function - even in the role of protecting those property rights with which some are so obsessed. As I said, those property rights do not exist outside of the context in which government is also an essential actor. Without government, property rights can be summed up as "might makes right" and little more. All else that we've been discussing flows from that, through logical connections that are no less valid just because some people can't or won't follow them.

I'd say that we shouldn't be aking why conservatives are happier, but why Democrats and other anti-American leftists are NOT happy. And THAT is mostly because, deep down, they KNOW they are wrong on just about everything they think.
;)

That is a disputed belief. The right to property is a fundamental right just as important as the right to life.
It's fine that you think so but, as you say, it's a disputed belief. That means it's not very useful to assume it when you ask why the individual taxpayer is given less consideration than the individual murderer. Also, accusing people of hypocrisy (as you did) based on your own unstated assumption might be considered a bit premature at best. Are you a hypocrite because some of your beliefs might not be consistent according to my assumptions and definitions, or should those beliefs be considered according to your assumptions and definitions? Common courtesy would require at least some attempt to understand someone else's reasoning before condemning it as hypocrisy.

Platyguy seems to be raging at human nature, REFUSING to accept that everyone doen't live by HIS special rules.

I love it when guys get all mad at "STRAWMEN" and "SLIPPERY SLOPES" and get all uptight that people in the REAL world don't live by their religiously held college debate rules!!!

When REALITY slaps guys like platy in the face, it just cracks me up.

-I should note that I am NOT commenting on the "facts" of platy's "arguments", nor the counters of those here. I am just laughing at platy's impotent raging that everyone is not living by his little rule book. Platy is, in essence, stomping up and down and yelling "Mommy... the OTHER kids aren't debating right!!"

It's all just so funny!

PlatyGuy, since your property rights don't exist outside of the protection of a government, how would you feel if the gov't really did tax 90% of your income to subsidize new beachfront jails with hot tubs and fully stocked bars?

Wow. When I saw this topic I thought it would say that because they are stupid, or simplistic, or see things simply.

I commend you for not doing that.

Although I suspect that people HAVE said that. Just shows that they are intellectually bankrupt.

Someone's going to say it, might as well be me. Ignorance is bliss. :p

Wow, see it didn't take long for the intellectually bankrupt to come out.

Conservatives are mostly white people who aren't poor. Why wouldn't they be happy?

Another completely inaccurate description.

Which would be utter nonsense. Conservativism is a general bias towards the status quo and traditional institutions. Liberalism is a general bias towards individual liberty and not restrained by tradional or orthodox beliefs and institutions. The reason everyone has the meanings of these words ass backwards is because "conservative" has been conflated with "Republican Party" and "liberal" is conflated with "Democratic Party."

this took an almost complete Mengele torture of logic to arrive at.

Cons are happier cause "out perfect government that god wanted, is leading us all the right direction!!...YAY!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!"...
Ignorance is bliss

This one should be forgiven because he is four years old and firmly in the grip of the leftist indoctrination of the public school system.

But it is clearly the winner of the stupid lefty award in this thread.

Well, where in the Constitution is Congress specifically given the power to create an endless array of social programs?

The exact same place that it specifically gives the Congress the power to create NASA, or to run an endless array of weapons research programs, such as the SDI.

Platyguy seems to be raging at human nature, REFUSING to accept that everyone doen't live by HIS special rules.

I love it when guys get all mad at "STRAWMEN" and "SLIPPERY SLOPES" and get all uptight that people in the REAL world don't live by their religiously held college debate rules!!!
Yeah, what a strange idea, that logic is the basis of argument. Too bad you weren't around to tell the founders when they phrased the Declaration of Independence as an appeal to reason instead of just saying "monarchy has gotten old" like some might have done. How could anyone think that the same intellectual rigor that makes this forum possible (as it underlies the technology behind it) could have any place in how we use it? Crazy talk. We should make logic illegal. :rolleyes:
When REALITY slaps guys like platy in the face, it just cracks me up.
Where's Feenix to bray about "debate the post" and not making assumptions about your fellow poster when it's one of his own who's out of line? Nowhere. You don't know a thing about me, MV. Odds are pretty good that I know far more about reality than you ever will because I've actually lived in the real world far longer (and better). Do you have anything to say about the arguments I or others made, or just personal attacks? What are we here for, if not to make arguments that have some hope of convincing others? Just to be annoying and childish? Apparently so in some cases.
Platy is, in essence, stomping up and down and yelling "Mommy... the OTHER kids aren't debating right!!"
No, I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out the errors so that even those who don't have a thorough grounding in logic and philosophy can see what fools you're making of yourselves and not be tempted to buy into the BS. Thanks for helping that effort along.

Platyguy seems to be raging at human nature, REFUSING to accept that everyone doen't live by HIS special rules.

I love it when guys get all mad at "STRAWMEN" and "SLIPPERY SLOPES" and get all uptight that people in the REAL world don't live by their religiously held college debate rules!!!

When REALITY slaps guys like platy in the face, it just cracks me up.

-I should note that I am NOT commenting on the "facts" of platy's "arguments", nor the counters of those here. I am just laughing at platy's impotent raging that everyone is not living by his little rule book. Platy is, in essence, stomping up and down and yelling "Mommy... the OTHER kids aren't debating right!!"

It's all just so funny!

No point at all. Par for course.

The exact same place that it specifically gives the Congress the power to create NASA, or to run an endless array of weapons research programs, such as the SDI.
Nasa may not deserve to exist as a government funded agency, but it hardly equates to a social handout. Weapons research is part of the military which is constitutionally mandated. Apples and oranges.

Conservatives are generally happier because they don't concern themselves with the group or collective mentality that liberals expect government to provide. This collective mentality is responsible for the downfall of several civilizations and will ultimately be responsible for our downfall. It's called socialism and it quite obviously doesn't work.

Weapons research is part of the military which is constitutionally mandated. Apples and oranges.


Where is it mandated? Is anything else mandated there?


Conservatives are generally happier because they don't concern themselves with the group or collective mentality that liberals expect government to provide. This collective mentality is responsible for the downfall of several civilizations and will ultimately be responsible for our downfall. It's called socialism and it quite obviously doesn't work.

The exact opposite of the truth. Modern "conservatives" are a bee hive. Independent thought is all but branded treason. Education, individualism, personal choices in life, religious or ethnic diversity, cultural or lifestyle choices are equaqted to sedition. They have a name for that. It's called fascism and it quite obviously doesn't work.

The exact same place that it specifically gives the Congress the power to create NASA, or to run an endless array of weapons research programs, such as the SDI.

I don't agree with these either, and "conservatives" who give lip service about small government and the constitution while ignoring it when it comes to their favored pork and projects are hypocrites.

this took an almost complete Mengele torture of logic to arrive at.

Actually, it just took some basic knowledge of history.

I don't agree with these either, and "conservatives" who give lip service about small government and the constitution while ignoring it when it comes to their favored pork and projects are hypocrites.

Which was exactly my point. Democrats use that paragraph to justify their welfare, which is taking money from the middle class to give to poor people who support the DNC, and Republicans use the same parpagraph to justify their welfare, which is taking money from the middle class to give to rich people who support the RNC.

In this case, I was talking to someone who didn't believe there was any basis for the Congress to consern itself with the general welfare, while saying that it was the business of the Congress to consern itself with the general defense.

Someone's going to say it, might as well be me. Ignorance is bliss. :p

I think this thread shouldv just gone ahead and stopped right here. Platy absolutly hit the nail on the head.

PlatyGuy, since your property rights don't exist outside of the protection of a government, how would you feel if the gov't really did tax 90% of your income to subsidize new beachfront jails with hot tubs and fully stocked bars?
I'd be pretty mad, but you probably knew that. Government is bound by the same social contract as citizens, though in different ways. Their power to appropriate property, via taxation or otherwise, is directly tied to their responsibilities, and if that power is used inappropriately then it's an offense against both reason and the constitution. I would oppose such taxation and misuse for the exact same reasons that I oppose warrantless wiretaps (http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/?p=1067), or the Kelo (http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/?p=934) decision, which are also abuses of the power granted to government. (Yes, I wrote both of those.) Saying that the government has the right to appropriate property for particular purposes and subject to certain restrictions is not at all the same as saying they should have carte blanche, but apparently the same people who rely on conflating the two also go wobbly when their shortcomings are exposed.

Also, I think the article is oversimplifying. Its not conservativeism that makes people happy--Both are byproducts of having money, and generally a lack of humanity. Of course its easy to be happy when you never consider the situations in third world countries, or try to bother thinking about how to fix them. When you can go and eat bacon and never consider the terrible treatment the creatures is given before it dies. When they can walk the streets of a city and see the poor out freezing begging for chance and think nothing more then, 'you deserve it, bum', as they never think of their history when there parents provided everything for them as children, and sent them to a nice school so they could get a nice job.

Bahh... I know generalizations, Im just saying its far more typical with the conservative mindset I see around these parts.

Personally, I think its because they've got more money. ;)

Why Conservatives Are Happier
George F. Will
February 23, 2006
A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals - in all income groups. Although 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared to 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.

Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole

Continued-link should work for two weeks (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-will0223.artfeb23,0,7531103.story)
I think its because Republicans are rich and greedy. Rich people have less wories that the poor. Hence Republicans are happy.:hmm:

Of course all that money they have won't get them out of hell.;)

I think its because Republicans are rich and greedy. Rich people have less wories that the poor. Hence Republicans are happy

No, the study I saw shows that when class is compared directly to class republicans are STILL happier.

When poorer Republicans are compared to poorer Democrats, the Republicans are STILL happier.

In other words, the amount of money they have doesn't have a THING to do with their relative happiness.

And that pretty much destroys you boring, leftist assumptions that all Republicans are rich and are happy because of it.

And, not only that, but to imagine that "rich people have less worries than the poor" is not a very intelligent thing to say. They may not have the SAME worries, but they don't have LESS worries!

.......... So after actually looking up the charts and research, for some reason they dont include 'pretty happy' into the totals--only very happy.

So 84% of americans are happy, 1% dont really know, and 15% arent happy.

But for some reason--For all the arguments that the non-partisan site makes explaining why conservatives simply have to be happier then democrats, they dont offer up the percentages, anywhere in the report as to overall happiness, as opposed to 'very happy'.

Also, judging by this poll, the majority of the 'very' happy people are indeed: Married Conservative Republicans who make 100k+, attend church weekly, and have kids over 18.

That, and the sample size for the interview doesnt seem very large to me for judging something like 'happiness', which is a very, very vague and odd term.

Besides--They admit the margins of error are great, and the way questions are worded can easily lead to answers contrary to how people actually feel.

And on top of this all--In all probability, democrats are more happy then republicans. They simply arent as many 'very happy' democrats as republicans. I'm very disturbed and have lost faith in whoever wrote up this interview by the fact that they didnt feel the need to anywhere list what the majority of the 'happy people' fall into for political affiliation. It seems far more relevent then the top 34%, or if anythign they should definetly combine the numbers once for an overall 'happiness' statistic.

http://booradley.homeip.net/tfr/kool_aid2.gif

No, the study I saw shows that when class is compared directly to class republicans are STILL happier.

When poorer Republicans are compared to poorer Democrats, the Republicans are STILL happier.

In other words, the amount of money they have doesn't have a THING to do with their relative happiness.

And that pretty much destroys you boring, leftist assumptions that all Republicans are rich and are happy because of it.

And, not only that, but to imagine that "rich people have less worries than the poor" is not a very intelligent thing to say. They may not have the SAME worries, but they don't have LESS worries!
Poor republicans are mentally handicapped since only an idiot would choose a political ideology which seeks to cheat and exploit themselves.

Poor republicans are mentally handicapped since only an idiot would choose a political ideology which seeks to cheat and exploit themselves.

I never stop being amused at how 'smart' some people feel calling others stupid.

Someone's going to say it, might as well be me. Ignorance is bliss. :p


Actually, your comment is ignorant. :nice:

First of all, conservative is not synonymous with Republican. There are plenty of conservatives who either aren't Republicans (since both parties are bad for our country) or vote Republican only because the alternative is so much worse. For the record, I'm in the first category.


BooRadley's post in this thread is a perfect example of why liberals are unhappy. Because they're always pissed off at everyone.


AMEN! :p There are some exceptions, but yeah, most liberals seem to be negative and nasty angry most of the time.


LOL.

I love liberals.
depending on their needs conservatives are either the "Rich, white elite"
Or "uneducated yokels from the south".
I mean really.. how many "red states" comments were made right here on this website?
So which is it? are conservatives stupid white trash from the south or are they rich white people without a care in the world?

:lol: Exactly. The ironic thing is, from what I have seen, most people who vote conservative these days are middle class... regular people with jobs. Of course there are wealthy conservatives, but not all. What I have found (having lived in LA, and San Francisco) is that liberals are usually either very wealthy (limosine liberals) or very poor and uneducated. The regular folks in the middle vote more moderate- conservative.

*goes back to reading thread*

No, people in America have just become confused. In Europe, I believe they still use correct terms.


Actually, the meaning has changed, over the years, as feenix said. You are going by the original definition, which is definitely no longer applicable, at least in the US. I was just talking to Joey about this a few days ago.

These days, 'liberal' means more government, and the issues they support ulimately lead to less freedom, not more.

Libertarians would be closer to classic liberal than today's 'liberals' are.

I don't know if this is a fact, it's just a guess, but... I wonder if the reason conservatives are happier (if that is true) has to do with faith in a higher power?

I don't know what the stats are, but it does seem to me (at least just from looking at this board) that conservatives tend to be believers more, and liberals/leftists are generally more atheist.

Having no hope I think would make a person more unhappy, negative and angry. When you know in your heart that truth/goodness/love/justice (God) exists then it gives you an incomprehensible peace (phil 4:6-7) and joy. http://www.discussanything.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

ok, time for me to go to bed... bye you all! :)

Actually, the meaning has changed, over the years, as feenix said. You are going by the original definition, which is definitely no longer applicable, at least in the US. I was just talking to Joey about this a few days ago.

These days, 'liberal' means more government, and the issues they support ulimately lead to less freedom, not more.

Libertarians would be closer to classic liberal than today's 'liberals' are.

This is only because progressives have hijacked the term. I prefer to stand by solid meanings. If a group of people who call themselves fascists suddenly start supporting libertarian ideas and the unthinking populace goes along, I'm not going to say that fascism = libertarianism.

I think the acknowledgement that humanity will always be imperfect plays a role in happiness. Progressive activists have a bit of a tendency to slip into the "If one person is suffering, I suffer too" mentality. I don't think that makes one morally superior, though it is a bit better than the "If gays are holding hands outside, I'm going to suffer" mentality. ;)

That's the most upside-down thing I've ever read. The people who thought Iraq would be a "cake walk", that increasing spending while decreasing revenue would lead to less debt, who thought that ignoring the UN and attacking Iraq would improve our image in the world, lead to a more stable Mideast, and decrease anti-Americanism, who truely believed that, if reelected, Bush would cut spending, can't possibly claim to be right more often than not about the course of events. They're almost always wrong.

And to say that pessimistic conservatives put not their faith government is equally nuts. They believe that the government should be given complete and total power to do as it pleases, and that the people shouldn't ever question the government, that no investigations should be done, no questions raised, no press released unless it benefits the government, that no civil liberty should be respected, no Constitutional limitation on government kept in piece.

WHat a load of crap.

The right doesn't believe that the government should have absolute power at all. As we speak, republicans and Dems alike are fighting the President on the ports issue, and that's just one of many examples. The idea of the right accepting a dictatorship is political propoganda, and it's not working.

America has expanded governmental power in wartime time and time again historically, yet things are often reversed when the war comes to an end.


Oh, and please, get your figures straight. Show me a year when federal revenues were decreased in real dollars.

The left has been chanting that tax cuts have driven up the deficit for years. They did it back when Reagan was president too, but strangely, it was okay for JFK to do it. The government was awash in revenues in the 80's, and they are today as well. Revenues aren't the problem; spending is, and always has been. Both parties are guilty.

Federal revenues have consistently risen every year for decades, and the Democrats in power know it. They just can't resist claiming that the budget has been "cut", and that revenues are down, because it plays to their constituents, many of whom envy, and some who even hate those who have fared better than they have finacially.

Conservatives do tend to be happier, partially because they're not out there angrily trying to shove their unpopular ideas down everyones throats, because they feel that they somehow know better than the average American. That's actually an extremely egotistical way to interact with other people, and that's one of the biggest reasons that the lefts' ideas are continually rejected by the voters.

People don't like being told what to do time and time again. It's annoying, and any child with an overbearing parent, or husband with a nagging wife knows it. That's human nature, and if the left would learn the art of positive persuasion, instead of regularly talking down to, or inciting and scaring people, they would be much more successful in the long run. They should abandon some of their more extreme idseas as well, because unless they're instituted by the courts, they'll never be inplemented.

Although, because the country has reached the point where the minority controls the majority, the left will always have hope. One atheist can outlaw public prayer and age old traditions for an entire nation, and one angry parent with an axe to grind can outlaw the pledge of allegiance under the right circumstances. One minority individual who doesn't get hired can force the whole country to insititue raciallly based quotas, regardless of qualifications. The list goes on and on.

America has expanded governmental power in wartime time and time again historically, yet things are often reversed when the war comes to an end.

Things are often not reversed, and the nature of this "war" points to a vague, neverending war - such as the War on Drugs.

Oh, and please, get your figures straight. Show me a year when federal revenues were decreased in real dollars.

The left has been chanting that tax cuts have driven up the deficit for years. They did it back when Reagan was president too, but strangely, it was okay for JFK to do it. The government was awash in revenues in the 80's, and they are today as well. Revenues aren't the problem; spending is, and always has been. Both parties are guilty.


Both spending and taxing are the problem with regards to deficits. We could spend twice as much and still run a surplus if we taxed three times as much. IT's not a one sided equasion. The problem with the Republicans is that they always increase spending while cutting taxes, always in a way that shifts the over all burden further onto the middle class. Regan did it too. That's why Republican administrations always run huge deficits. They claim they're cutting taxes, but they're only defering them. We still have to pay for it sooner or later.

All this money that the "conservatives" are spending to conquer Iraq is money that taxpayers will have to pay back. They can temporarily cut taxes now, but, sooner or later, it has to be payed.

The right doesn't believe that the government should have absolute power at all. As we speak, republicans and Dems alike are fighting the President on the ports issue, and that's just one of many examples. The idea of the right accepting a dictatorship is political propoganda, and it's not working.

America has expanded governmental power in wartime time and time again historically, yet things are often reversed when the war comes to an end.


This war has no end. A "War on Terror" can't be won, so the restoration of the Constitution won't come. That's why they like vague wars so much.


Conservatives do tend to be happier, partially because they're not out there angrily trying to shove their unpopular ideas down everyones throats, because they feel that they somehow know better than the average American. That's actually an extremely egotistical way to interact with other people, and that's one of the biggest reasons that the lefts' ideas are continually rejected by the voters.


Hahaha. Oh, so they were straight forward about the PNAC instead of lying about what they were doing, and pretending they were trying to avoid war with Iraq? They don't try to shove their religion down people's throats by forcing it into schools, courts, and anywhere else they can get it? They don't try to force their warped morality on everyone else by constantly trying to codify it into law?

B.S.


People don't like being told what to do time and time again. It's annoying, and any child with an overbearing parent, or husband with a nagging wife knows it. That's human nature, and if the left would learn the art of positive persuasion, instead of regularly talking down to, or inciting and scaring people, they would be much more successful in the long run.


Think about that for a while. Think about your attempts to tell gays that they can't marry. The attempts to close pagan churches. The constant, unending attempts to tell women they can't have an abortion. The unyeilding attempts to shove their pseudo-christian "morality" down everyone else's throats through the government. If you right-wingers took a taste of your own medicine, you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, it's just hypocrisy.


Although, because the country has reached the point where the minority controls the majority, the left will always have hope. One atheist can outlaw public prayer and age old traditions for an entire nation, and one angry parent with an axe to grind can outlaw the pledge of allegiance under the right circumstances. One minority individual who doesn't get hired can force the whole country to insititue raciallly based quotas, regardless of qualifications. The list goes on and on.

Ironic as hell or not?

No one is trying to outlaw prayer or traditions. They're just trying to get right-wingers to stop using the government to shove it down everyone else's throats.

This is a bunch of hysterical fear, particularly fear of change.

Where is it mandated? Is anything else mandated there?


Ever read this?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

Where's Feenix to bray about "debate the post" and not making assumptions about your fellow poster when it's one of his own who's out of line? Nowhere. You don't know a thing about me, MV.

I generally only get defensive when I'm the one being attacked. I'm not a mod, so me telling people to be nice doesn't really carry much weight. All I can do is report posts to the mods and let them decide (which I almost never do)

Oh and Mobile Volgus isn't "one of my own". I butt heads with him just as often as everyone else.

I'd be pretty mad, but you probably knew that. Government is bound by the same social contract as citizens, though in different ways. Their power to appropriate property, via taxation or otherwise, is directly tied to their responsibilities, and if that power is used inappropriately then it's an offense against both reason and the constitution. I would oppose such taxation and misuse for the exact same reasons that I oppose warrantless wiretaps (http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/?p=1067), or the Kelo (http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/?p=934) decision, which are also abuses of the power granted to government. (Yes, I wrote both of those.) Saying that the government has the right to appropriate property for particular purposes and subject to certain restrictions is not at all the same as saying they should have carte blanche, but apparently the same people who rely on conflating the two also go wobbly when their shortcomings are exposed.

So, your support for each government program is predicated on your agreement with its goals, not on an ideal about how the social contract gives government the right to spend our money however we want without our consent. My opposition to programs like medicaid and social security is just as valid as your opposition to beachfront jails.

Ever read this?

Thanks for making my point. I knew some right-winger would completely miss it.


Originally Posted by BooRadley
Where is it mandated? Is anything else mandated there?



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.


You only see what you want to. If you can take one clause of the paragraph to rationalize Republican welfare, then you're no different from the people who take another clause from the same paragraph to rationalize Democrat welfare.

Can I be a Libertarian and not rationalize any welfare at all?

Unless one is a "living document" type, only powers specifically given to Congress in the Constitution should be used to back up one's projects, not vague, pretty words in the intro.

Oh, and please, get your figures straight. Show me a year when federal revenues were decreased in real dollars.
Maybe you're the one who needs to get your figures straight. Adjusting for inflation is important, but so is adjusting for population because it would be wrong to credit policy for an effect which really stems from population aging or immigration. As you can see from this chart (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/r3.cfm), per-capita inflation-adjusted revenue did decline from 2000 to 2003. The enclosing document cites data sources pretty well itself, so don't ask me to repeat what you can find yourself. Now, what are your sources?

Maybe you're the one who needs to get your figures straight. Adjusting for inflation is important, but so is adjusting for population because it would be wrong to credit policy for an effect which really stems from population aging or immigration. As you can see from this chart (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/r3.cfm), per-capita inflation-adjusted revenue did decline from 2000 to 2003. The enclosing document cites data sources pretty well itself, so don't ask me to repeat what you can find yourself. Now, what are your sources?


That is a complete fallacious way to calculate federal spending. Not all spending is linear with population. Nor should revenue be linear with population. If you wish to use this method, at least use the common financial analysis method of segregating fixed vs. variable costs - and mandatory vs. discretionary spending.

No, we do not have a revenue problem - we have spending problem. A good resource to understand the issues is the Concord Coalition website, which is refreshingly non-partisan.

http://concordcoalition.org/

The US not only needs less revenue, but it needs to stop spending money it doesn't even have.

No, we do not have a revenue problem - we have spending problem.


We have both, that's where debt comes from. If you spend more than you recieve, then you run a debt, and you either need more revenue, or less spending, or both. The problem with the Republicans is that they always run deficits. They love to spend, spend, spend, and then pass the debt off for a responsible office to start taking the revenues to pay for the spending that was done.

So, your support for each government program is predicated on your agreement with its goals, not on an ideal about how the social contract gives government the right to spend our money however we want without our consent. My opposition to programs like medicaid and social security is just as valid as your opposition to beachfront jails.
Only in the sense that all opinions are equally valid regardless of how connected they are to empirical fact or how strong its internal logic is. Are you a proponent of (so called) intelligent design too, or a believer that vaccines cause autism? I ask because they also want us to believe that all opinions are equal, as do these guys (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm), and I reject that kind of relativism. I also wonder (as I did with MV) why someone would bother to demand acceptance of an opinion they're unwilling to support, if not merely to increase division.

Only in the sense that all opinions are equally valid regardless of how connected they are to empirical fact or how strong its internal logic is. Are you a proponent of (so called) intelligent design too, or a believer that vaccines cause autism? I ask because they also want us to believe that all opinions are equal, as do these guys (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm), and I reject that kind of relativism. I also wonder (as I did with MV) why someone would bother to demand acceptance of an opinion they're unwilling to support, if not merely to increase division.

You've cited the social contract as your justification for supporting social programs. I've shown that the social contact could be used to justify anything, and that it's not the real reason you support the social programs. So now you need a new reason.

I can tell you why I don't support them. They create dependency, they create beurocracy, they drain the economy, and ultimately they cut down on production, which is the lifeblood of any society.

I can tell you why I don't support them. They create dependency, they create beurocracy, they drain the economy, and ultimately they cut down on production, which is the lifeblood of any society.

Pretty broad assumption. Public schools are a social program, and they don't do that, at all. Any kind of outreach program to engage kids in inner citys to get them involve in learning, particularly technology, will probably have a long-term payoff to society -- to the general welfare. Same with educational grants. They suppliment the cost of raising the bottom of the society, which will benefit the whole by raising our standard of living and improving the economy in the long run.

Pretty broad assumption. Public schools are a social program, and they don't do that, at all. Any kind of outreach program to engage kids in inner citys to get them involve in learning, particularly technology, will probably have a long-term payoff to society -- to the general welfare. Same with educational grants. They suppliment the cost of raising the bottom of the society, which will benefit the whole by raising our standard of living and improving the economy in the long run.

Public schools do create dependency, and beurocracy, and they do drain the economy. We would be much better off with private school vouchers. Competing schools perform better. States that have implemented private school vouchers have noticed improvements in both private and public schools. The public school system as it stands elsewhere is creating a drain on the economy, by NOT educating children as well as they could otherwise.

Public education may be better than no education at all, but in whose imaginary world would there be no education at all in America? Americans value education. That's why we have a school system in the first place. Without government interference, we would still have an education system for those who want it, and it would probably do a better job.

I'm not saying that public money shouldn't be used for education. On the contrary, I do believe that every American should be given the opportunity to succeed. But giving the government complete control over the schools has led us to a situation where American students' test scores are miserable. There is a better way.

of course, that's all waaaaay off topic.

That is a complete fallacious way to calculate federal pending. Not all spending is linear with population.
If you want to talk about fallacies, how about conflating revenue with spending? I was talking about the former and you answered with the latter. Or maybe we could address the fallacy that either spending or revenue is completely uncorrelated with population, which is the one that both Betrade and you have relied on. I admit that per-capita revenue is not the perfect measure here, but it's a damn large bit better than spending figures that ignore population increase entirely.
If you wish to use this method, at least use the common financial analysis method of segregating fixed vs. variable costs - and mandatory vs. discretionary spending.
That's setting the bar quite a bit higher for one side than the other, isn't it? I've provided some figures and sources, and I'm not going to raise until that ante is met by you or Betrade. I do have a job and other responsibilities that preclude acting as a full-time research assistant even for my allies let alone for my opponents.
No, we do not have a revenue problem - we have spending problem. A good resource to understand the issues is the Concord Coalition website, which is refreshingly non-partisan.
That is a correct observation and a good source. Thank you. However, the point some have been trying to make is that reducing revenue while the spending problem persists is irresponsible. The two are not entirely unrelated. By all means let's reduce spending, then reduce revenue. If we do it backwards, we'll get killed on the interest and better all learn to speak Chinese.

That is a correct observation and a good source. Thank you. However, the point some have been trying to make is that reducing revenue while the spending problem persists is irresponsible. The two are not entirely unrelated. By all means let's reduce spending, then reduce revenue. If we do it backwards, we'll get killed on the interest and better all learn to speak Chinese.

Reducing spending is the most difficult and dangerous venture that a politician can embark on, because there's always somebody who is on the recieving end of the spending and will resist the cut with every resource available to them.

So what do you propose we should cut?

You've cited the social contract as your justification for supporting social programs. I've shown that the social contact could be used to justify anything, and that it's not the real reason you support the social programs.
You've shown no such thing as that last. You haven't even come close, and I'm not even sure you've tried other than to claim success. Let's at least stay somewhere near the truth, OK? Ascribing nefarious motives to others is bad enough even when there's some justification for it (as it was when you complained about it).

Also, there's a difference between saying that some particular thing is justified by some specific social contract and saying that any arbitrary thing can be justified by some arbitrary social contract. If you ask your boss to fund a specific project, how would you feel if she said that there's always some kind of project to justify any expenditure and she's just not going to start down that amazingly slippery slope so she'll just preemptively reject the request without even considering the project's specific merits? I think you'd find such an argument absurd, but it's the one you're trying to use.
I can tell you why I don't support them. They create dependency, they create beurocracy, they drain the economy, and ultimately they cut down on production, which is the lifeblood of any society.
All statements of faith, with not a single fact provided in support. I'm not going to conflate dozens of programs with many significant differences, but I think I can say that in at least some cases I support programs you oppose because I believe they have effects exactly opposite to what you claim. The difference seems to be that I am able and willing to back that up that belief when pressed.

You've shown no such thing as that last. You haven't even come close, and I'm not even sure you've tried other than to claim success.


Well then you're either not reading or not understanding my posts.

I can only read and understand what you actually write, and what you have actually written doesn't come close to satisfying your claim. If you meant to write something else that conveyed a different message, but didn't choose to or didn't have the skill, that's your problem.

PlatyGuy, do you think there is an objective criteria for determining what is and is not an abuse of government power?

PlatyGuy, do you think there is an objective criteria for determining what is and is not an abuse of government power?
Yes, I believe there are. I've even outlined some. Next question.

I agree with the poll. I am certainly sadder than any conservative I know. Why?

1. I feel sad that the conservatives are happy we have to occupy a foreign country, and have GI's die.
2. I feel sad that the conservatives are happy about Global warming.
3. I feel sad that the conservatives are happy that the environment should be looted for money.
4. I feel sad that conservatives are happy that they see the world in Black and White.
5. I feel sad that conservatives are happy that there is a huge deficit.
6. I feel sad that conservatives are happy to think that the best way to reduce AIDS is to stop having sex.
7. I feel sad that conservatives are happy that there is a blithering idiiot in the White House.
8. I feel sad that conservatives are happy that all Muslims are viewed as scum.
9. I feel sad that conservatives are happy that CEO's make 1000% more than anyone else in the company.
10. I feel sad that conservatives are happy that the rich got the lion's share of the tax cuts.
11. I feel sad that the conservatives are happy with our success in planting democracy in the Middle East.
12. I feel sad that the conservatives are happy to deport any illegal immigrant who wants to make a buck, and take jobs that no conservative would take.
I just feel so sad.:( :( :( :( :( :( :(

Where is it mandated? Is anything else mandated there?Provide implies a mandate, promote does not.



The exact opposite of the truth. Modern "conservatives" are a bee hive. Independent thought is all but branded treason. Education, individualism, personal choices in life, religious or ethnic diversity, cultural or lifestyle choices are equaqted to sedition. They have a name for that. It's called fascism and it quite obviously doesn't work.One of the main planks of the liberal agenda is to remove individualism from society. To them the common good of the collective is far more important than the freedoms of the individual. Do you really think that independent thought could possibly exist in an environment where government exists to serve all the social needs of the collective? I guess the point is that your personal choices shouldn't come at the expense of the taxpayer, nor should government be used to force choices opon the taxpayer. Everyone should be responsible for their own choices in life without any influence from government. And that holds true for both parties.

One of the main planks of the liberal agenda is to remove individualism from society.
Would you like to show us a platform or position statement from any notable liberal organization that would support that? What do you think of the ACLU, which is a favorite punching bag for the anti-liberals? Do they believe in individuality or not? Which party/ideology is it that is notorious for their party loyalty and discipline which are the opposite of individualism? Which one is it that excludes dissenters from their campaign appearances?

Maybe, instead of demonizing others, you should consider the possibility that others believe in individualism just as strongly as you do but merely differ regarding how it is promoted or destroyed.
Do you really think that independent thought could possibly exist in an environment where government exists to serve all the social needs of the collective?
No, but then nobody's suggesting that government's role is anything like that. Do you think independent thought could possibly exist in an environment where the fascist state tells you what you should think because anything other than the party line is supporting terrorists. Oh, wait, nobody's suggesting that either. Maybe, though, being on the other end will help you see how non-constructive such caricatures are.

Yes, I believe there are. I've even outlined some. Next question.

So, what's the criteria that says social programs like medicare and social security are appropriate functions of gov't?

So, what's the criteria that says social programs like medicare and social security are appropriate functions of gov't?
As was made quite clear in Helvering v. Davis (http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html), the justification for SS lies in the "general welfare" clause of the constitution, plus a dose of judicial deference to congress which had passed the law (so much for "judicial activism" being a liberal thing). Personally, I'm not all that big a fan of the program. I think it is in society's interest for there to be a safety net, and also that a just and egalitarian society should act to ensure that poverty is not too much of a permanent hereditary condition, but SS has long since departed from those goals.

Of course, my arguments haven't been about SS so I feel no need to have that millstone hung around my neck for your convenience. Just because SS is poorly implemented, or even if it had been poorly conceived from the start, doesn't mean that the "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" alternative is the only one left. Arguments against SS have little bearing on whether the government should have broad regulatory powers, for example, or whether it should be involved in education, or whether it has a right to secure funds for those and other purposes. As shocking as some might find the notion, it really is possible to be a staunch liberal without supporting every program or idea that has ever been espoused by other liberals. It's all part of that individuality thing.

Would you like to show us a platform or position statement from any notable liberal organization that would support that? Democrats will not stop fighting this battle until every single American has access to the health care they need.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html#healthcareThis would create more expansion of already bloated government and place a larger burden on the portion of society that will be forced to pay for it. Not to mention it would be asking the government to force millions of individuals working for hospitals, doctors and insurance companies to conform to government regulations that would affect their lives. That's not freedom.

What do you think of the ACLU, which is a favorite punching bag for the anti-liberals? Do they believe in individuality or not? Which party/ideology is it that is notorious for their party loyalty and discipline which are the opposite of individualism? Which one is it that excludes dissenters from their campaign appearances?

Maybe, instead of demonizing others, you should consider the possibility that others believe in individualism just as strongly as you do but merely differ regarding how it is promoted or destroyed.I have no problem with most of what the ACLU tries to do. I would have more respect for them if they went after the government on issues regarding the redistribution of wealth which remove individual freedoms. If you believe liberals aren't guilty of removing individual freedom, then you're incredibly naive. Both parties exclude desenters from campaign appearances. Just ask Hillary. If you truly believe in individual freedom, then you would denounce social programs right here and now. Liberals don't handle frreedom well.

No, but then nobody's suggesting that government's role is anything like that. Do you think independent thought could possibly exist in an environment where the fascist state tells you what you should think because anything other than the party line is supporting terrorists. Oh, wait, nobody's suggesting that either. Maybe, though, being on the other end will help you see how non-constructive such caricatures are.Cute pal. Liberals suggest and use government to force money from productive citizens every payday. Don't you find it fascist to force one portion of the population to pay for the needs of the irresponsible? Could you possibly find a way to justify theft as freedom? Liberals tell the taxpaying portion of society that theft is an acceptable response to individual freedom because our freedom is less important than the common good. Is that not fascism? Explain yourself.

This would create more expansion of already bloated government and place a larger burden on the portion of society that will be forced to pay for it.
So your "evidence" that liberals want to stamp out individuality is that the Democrats want universal access to health care? Can you seriously equate the two?
Liberals suggest and use government to force money from productive citizens every payday.
Let me know when you get back from outer space to somewhere in the vicinity of the claim we were discussing - i.e. that liberals want to stamp out individuality. Try a PM, because I might not bother reading this thread much longer; the signal-to-noise ratio wasn't too high to start with and has only gone down in the last 1:34 or so.

Platyguy is really amusing - although his buttons are far too easy to push.

We need a more challenging Moonbatversary.

We need a more challenging Moonbatversary

Hahahahahah

Thanks for making my point. I knew some right-winger would completely miss it.





You only see what you want to. If you can take one clause of the paragraph to rationalize Republican welfare, then you're no different from the people who take another clause from the same paragraph to rationalize Democrat welfare.

On the contrary, as was inevitable. I was waiting for you to do this. The "general welfare" clause was not meant as a blank check for the federal government to intervene in every facet of our lives. That was made plain by the writers of the constitution as well as the plain language that RESTRICTS the fed's authority to the rights and responsibilities enumerated therein. The "common defense" clause is not so defined. I also find it interesting that you equate the defense of this country with Republican welfare. I always thought it was far above such petty partisan consideration. Is that where the radical left-wing is leading us? I