Fairness: Liberal vs Conservative

[_Res Ipsa]

I've been meaning to respond to that comment as well. Right now, rejection of evidence from science is most prominent among some conservatives because of the prominence of certain issues: global warming, women's reproductive health, creationism, etc. But many liberals are equally as bad when it comes to so-called alternative and complementary medicine, nuclear power, gmo crops, etc.

[_Droopy]

1. No. The poor should be helped not because of the theoretical abstractions of "fair" and "unfair," but because they are our brothers and sisters, human beings, and we are to do unto them as we would do unto ourselves.

That's fine with me. If you help poor people with this reasoning, then I think you're a good person. Of course, if what you're trying to get at is that Beastie has no connection with children she helps read and only does it because she's made a theoretical, mental-only calculation, well, can you possibly believe that?

My comments are aimed at the leftist philosophy and attitudes she has expressed in this forum for many years, as well as the language she has used in describing her positions, which is the classic language of the Left for generations upon the same subjects, and for which there is ample evidence (Dr. Sowell has explicated this in detail in his trilogy on the nature of the Left).

Don't you think that notions of "fairness" come about by "abstracting" how one should act based on empathy, or the golden rule, or whatever?

It may, but extending the concept of "fairness" to society itself with the idea that the economic, material, and social status of each member can be somehow be "distributed" in a more equitable manner with regard to other members of that society, and that it is possible for government to do something toward achieving this vision, is nonsensical and destructive. Life is inherently unfair because it is mortal life, and life in an economically free society is unfair not only because it is mortal in nature, and because each individual is a unique individual who comes into mortality with different aptitudes, potential, and inherent limitations, but because that very freedom expands and encourages the field of human endeavor. A wide variety of disparate outcomes is the natural state in a society in which there are few limits and a huge plethora of options as to the coarse one will take.

The motivation would be the same practical motivation behind any other rule. I don't want to hit people with my car based on empathy and how bad I'd feel about it if I ever did, so I don't drive around my neighborhood at 70 mph weaving in and out of lanes. However, this does not imply that there shouldn't be a speed limit, even though pretty much everyone else reasons as I do as well.

Well, that's quite true, but I'm not at all sure I see the relevance between speed limit rules and schemes of wealth transfer for the purpose of decreasing income inequality (or high, punitive taxes such as dividend, capital gains, and death taxes (and various "windfall" or excise taxes that come around now and then) that may never make it into the pockets of the lower quintiles per se, but are simply supposed to weaken the relative position of "the rich" and hence, narrow the income inequality gap). The more the poor and middle classes have, the smaller the income inequality. Or, the less the wealthy have, the smaller the gap. The question always is, of course, how to narrow that gap.

You might have a problems with rules that lose touch with the reasons for their creation. For instance, one can satisfy himself that he's driving the speed limit, but still hit someone out of carelessness. And then there's the police state, where what started out as a good idea, simply becomes a feeding ground for government to make money off of technicalities as the underlying problems go unsolved. And of course, there are the free riders, pedestrians who intentionally take their time in a crosswalk. But understanding there are problems with laws, whether about welfare or traffic, doesn't mean we should do away with laws, that's as impractical as the belief we can solve all our problems with laws.

I'm not an anarchist, but a modern conservative. I thought that had always been understood, as I've never taken libertarian anarchist positions on anything.

And the church has a rule-based welfare program, does it not?

Yes.

I have relatives who do a lot of volunteer work for it, and the same range of perspectives exist there as in secular society; one of these relatives feels very connected with the poor, the other I'm pretty sure feels far less connected at a personal level, but duty bound, and both think there is quite a lot of free riding going on. They also believe the program should expand notwithsdanding the free-riding and the paid positions that are probably filled by people who just want a job.

Again, the Western leftist intelligentsia has always tended to look at humanity in terms of groups, collectives, and lumpen masses (this was Marx' view of humanity and of the Proletariat and the poor whom he claimed so much concern, which wasn't really any kind of legitimately moral concern at all but a utopian theoretical abstraction within which other theoretical abstractions were central to that theoretical framework) that were integral aspects of grand theoretical models of social organization and destiny. People like Beastie, while they may have no firm grasp of the historical or ideological core of such intellectual and political movements, have deeply absorbed the language and psychological orientation of the general tendency.

The personification of "society," the idea that income inequality should even be considered a problem at all in a society in which there are few barriers (much more now that in times past, unfortunately) to individual success relative to each individual's particular talents, aptitudes, and predispositions, and in which the economic pie is always growing, making room for ever more wealth creation in an ever expanding realm of economic action, and the uniquely destructive idea that equality is more important than quality and that just doing well economically is not enough and not worth pursuing unless the wealth of others with greater wealth is forcibly reduced for the purpose of narrowing income inequality as an abstract theoretical goal are all a part of Beastie's textbook leftist worldview, and concern and compassion for "the poor" are no part of that worldview, in any morally authentic sense, and never have been, despite what she may think within the sphere of her more personal relationships.

[_Droopy]

Liberals, never learning from history,..

"learning from history" is a Marxist idea, and at the root of Keynes's philosophy.

Is this an attempt at sophistry, Gad, or a sincere assertion? I find it difficult to accept the latter. Learning from history is not a Marxist idea but a human idea that has long been a central aspect of the idea of history and doing history itself within the Western intellectual tradition. The Founders knowledge of and the lessons acquired from a deep study of history was integral to the founding of a republican form of government and rejection of the ancien regime.

For Marx, history was not something one learned from, in a broader philosophical sense, but something that humanity must eventually accept and deal with as each epoch moves inevitable toward another. History, for Marx, was a series of inexorable and unalterable stages of human development which humans could resist or encourage, but could never circumvent.

Marx' view is Hegelian, not pedagogical. There's nothing to "learn" from history in the sense in which most non-Marxists would understand that idea. One can anticipate the inevitable, but cannot learn from what is only what must be the case given the fundamental rules of historical development. One can learn the gnostic ideology that provides insight into the inevitable forward progression of history, but can learn nothing from "history" itself, as history has nothing to teach. Marxism, and all other similar theories, are oracles, not searches for truth, in the broader sense.

The annointed, as Droopy calls them, "learn from history", and thereby guide the unwashed masses through market failures. You're preaching liberal ideology.

No, they don't learn from history, which is why they keep guiding the unwashed masses through generations of market failure, Keynesian boom and bust cycles, vast opportunity costs, moral hazards, societal decline, and, when pressed too far, gulags and firing squads.

Modern advocates of markets preach rational expectations, which dismiss the lessons from history as already accounted for in the projection of market agents. If you do not believe that market agents behave this way, then you imply they are not rational, and thereby imply government intervention is at least on the table.

Human beings are not primarily rational, nor need they be, in a rigid philosophical sense, to thrive in a free market environment. They do need to be, and are, self-interested and motivated to improve their material condition. Within this context, they many times behave in a rational manner to maximize gains and minimize losses, but the choice to by a car that is cherry red vs. white, green, teal, orange, or black, is subjective, as is the choice to hang big fuzzy dice off one's rear-view mirror (and yes, there is a big fuzzy dice industry somewhere who's continued existence is grounded in a market for big fuzzy dice).

When you and Droops are ready to learn real free-market economics, just let me know, and i'll teach you.

Unfortunately, if you are primarily a contemporary academic/mathematical economist, you probably don't really have a very good grasp of those phenomena, being trapped, as you are, in a world of abstract mathematical arcana, concepts of perfect competition, the study of equations rather than actual human motives, interests, incentives, and action, and computer modeling.

Checkmate on that, Gad. Its already a well-worn failure.

[_Darth J]

It may, but extending the concept of "fairness" to society itself with the idea that the economic, material, and social status of each member can be somehow be "distributed" in a more equitable manner with regard to other members of that society, and that it is possible for government to do something toward achieving this vision, is nonsensical and destructive. Life is inherently unfair because it is mortal life, and life in an economically free society is unfair not only because it is mortal in nature, and because each individual is a unique individual who comes into mortality with different aptitudes, potential, and inherent limitations, but because that very freedom expands and encourages the field of human endeavor. A wide variety of disparate outcomes is the natural state in a society in which there are few limits and a huge plethora of options as to the coarse one will take.

That being the case, why should fairness extend to legal rights? Why shouldn't legal rights be based on merit? For example, your recent uninformed babbling about Dixon v. University of Toledo. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27754 You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. That's not simply name-calling; it is objectively demonstrable. None of the issues you were babbling about were claims that Dixon actually made. None of what you said had anything to do with the decision of the district court or the circuit court. So why should you have the same right to talk about this case as informed people who do know what they're talking about? Life is inherently unfair, so why should the government artificially try to create a state of legal egalitarianism by giving everyone the same right to opine on something?

[_Droopy]

It may, but extending the concept of "fairness" to society itself with the idea that the economic, material, and social status of each member can be somehow be "distributed" in a more equitable manner with regard to other members of that society, and that it is possible for government to do something toward achieving this vision, is nonsensical and destructive. Life is inherently unfair because it is mortal life, and life in an economically free society is unfair not only because it is mortal in nature, and because each individual is a unique individual who comes into mortality with different aptitudes, potential, and inherent limitations, but because that very freedom expands and encourages the field of human endeavor. A wide variety of disparate outcomes is the natural state in a society in which there are few limits and a huge plethora of options as to the coarse one will take.

That being the case, why should fairness extend to legal rights? Why shouldn't legal rights be based on merit?

Because in the classical liberal tradition, our legal and, especially, our unalienable natural rights are grounded in our fundamental nature, or, in other words, in our inherent humanness, irrespective of merit or talent. I have the right to become rich by creating a good or service that others wish to buy of their own free will, but I have no right to defraud or cheat my customers. I will be held accountable for fraud on the merits of the case because I choose to commit fraud. While I chose to go into a certain line of business (a Pizza chain, let's say), I did not and cannot choose to become rich. Only the market can choose that. All I can do is be a competent as I can (merit) and hope my merit is recognized by the market as merit.

Human valuation be to a great degree subjective, however, and competition being what it is, there are no guarantees.

You seem to have missed the point of the text here. Legal and civil rights, from a constitutional perspective, extend to individuals and only to individuals (the constitution knows nothing of groups, which is why the concept of equality under the law can have any meaning at all in free society) and are not meant to equalize any actual existential conditions between individuals and other individuals in society but only to equalize conditions before a body of abstractions known as the law.

If the president of the United States is caught shoplifting, and I am caught shoplifting, we are both to be equal before the law; we are to go before the law under the same set of procedural rules, limitations, protections, and conditions as equals.

There is no equality of this kind in actual human endeavors, however, and attempts to make things "equal" or "equitable" between a vast plethora of unequal, highly differentiated, unique individuals can only be attempted through the destruction of liberty and the exaltation of the state. Indeed, if anything, the concept of equality under the law is the one morally and philosophically legitimate place that real equality between intellectually and psychologically disparate human beings can bring all citizens together as equals under a single standard, regardless of other societal status.

[_Darth J]

Legal and civil rights, from a constitutional perspective, extend to individuals and only to individuals (the constitution knows nothing of groups, which is why the concept of equality under the law can have any meaning at all in free society)

In a surprising turn of events, Droopy makes a sweeping assertion that is completely wrong. I think it was a nice touch to use italics to draw extra attention to your wrongness.

E.g.,

Boys Scouts of America v. Dale

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin

Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral

Snyder v. Phelps

Anyway, the question is why all individuals should have the same rights when life is not fair. If not everyone has the same abilities and circumstances, and not everyone is entitled to the same outcome, why should everyone have the same rights? You have not responded to that "why." You have just reiterated your value judgments, coupled with an appeal to tradition. "Because in the classical liberal tradition, our legal and, especially, our unalienable natural rights are grounded in our fundamental nature, or, in other words, in our inherent humanness, irrespective of merit or talent." That isn't an empirical fact. It's a value judgment.

Take World Net Daily. Its reporting was hopelessly wrong about Dixon v. University of Toledo. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/6th-circuit- ... s-freedom/ Why should the individual who wrote this ludicrous assessment that is wronger than wrong have the same right to freedom of speech as someone who can accurately report what happened? Can you offer a reason, or are you just going to go with argument by assertion about your value judgments?

[_Droopy]

Anyway, the question is why all individuals should have the same rights when life is not fair. If not everyone has the same abilities and circumstances, and not everyone is entitled to the same outcome, why should everyone have the same rights?

"Rights" in the constitutional sense have nothing to do with any specific qualitative "outcomes" through the course of life but with liberties the state cannot infringe upon or curtail without clear and extenuating reasons for so doing. Freedom of speech, association, press, and the right of private property guarantees no "outcome" and has no relation to my varied capacities, circumstances, or aptitudes other than that which my capacities and aptitudes lead me toward on my own path of life, which the rights of the constitution guarantee as being the framework within which I can seek happiness and success in may own way within the limits of my own capacity.

Even complete intellectual and moral losses who are, to an overwhelming degree, drags on society who lower the overall level of cultural health and wellbeing for all, such as many within the contemporary legal profession, have the same individual rights before the law.

Oh, and none of the special interest cartoon case law you provide above alters the core constitutional law as written in its original intent and meaning, or the logical and conceptual implications of its fundamental propositions.

burrow, Johnnie, burrow ever lower, and the brighter the sun shines, the deeper you will have to go.

[_Darth J]

Anyway, the question is why all individuals should have the same rights when life is not fair. If not everyone has the same abilities and circumstances, and not everyone is entitled to the same outcome, why should everyone have the same rights?

"Rights" in the constitutional sense have nothing to do with any specific qualitative "outcomes" through the course of life but with liberties the state cannot infringe upon or curtail without clear and extenuating reasons for so doing. Freedom of speech, association, press, and the right of private property guarantees no "outcome" and has no relation to my varied capacities, circumstances, or aptitudes other than that which my capacities and aptitudes lead me toward on my own path of life, which the rights of the constitution guarantee as being the framework within which I can seek happiness and success in may own way within the limits of my own capacity.

"Outcome" is exactly the determining factor. The "clear and extenuating reasons" for infringing on constitutional rights (you meant to say "clear and compelling") are determined by what outcomes the exercise of that right will achieve. That's why, for example, child pornography is not protected by freedom of expression, and human sacrifice is not protected by the free exercise of religion. When the government curtails the way in which certain rights may be exercised, "outcome" is exactly what they are looking at. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that in Reynolds v. United States, when Mormons tried to use judicial activism to redefine traditional marriage:

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

Even complete intellectual and moral losses who are, to an overwhelming degree, drags on society who lower the overall level of cultural health and wellbeing for all, such as many within the contemporary legal profession, have the same individual rights before the law.

So in summary, no, you cannot do other than reiterate your value judgments. You are not able to explain why everyone should have the same rights, rather than earning individual rights based on merit.

Oh, and none of the special interest cartoon case law you provide above alters the core constitutional law as written in its original intent and meaning, or the logical and conceptual implications of its fundamental propositions.

burrow, Johnnie, burrow ever lower, and the brighter the sun shines, the deeper you will have to go.

Droopy, I am pleased to see your assessment of these cases. No doubt you read and studied them thoroughly before arriving at your conclusion.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale held that because of the right of free association protected by the First Amendment, the State of New Jersey cannot force the BSA to accept homosexuals as scoutmasters. I am glad to know that you feel that the government should be able to make the BSA appoint openly gay scoutmasters against the BSA's will.

Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC held that because of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment (i.e., establishment of religion), the federal government cannot sue a religious organization for terminating a minister under that organization's religious teachings of who qualifies to preach their religious message. I am glad to know that you feel the federal government should be able to have the courts review a church's decisions about whom to call as a minister.

Democratic Party v. Wisconsin held that a state government cannot impose its own rules on how a political organization should govern itself. I am glad to know that you feel the government should be able to tell private political parties how they can pursue their common political ideas.

Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral held that a state government cannot review and interpret religious doctrines and policies to decide the outcome of an intra-faith dispute about ownership of church property. I am glad to know that you feel the government should be able to second-guess the ecclesiastical policies and teachings of a church.

Snyder v. Phelps held that the Westboro Baptist Church and its leaders have a First Amendment defense to lawsuits based on their speech, even when that speech is highly offensive to others. I am glad to know that you feel that people should be able to sue churches to stop them from expressing their messages if someone is offended by those messages.

This must be your position, since you assert that the above represent "special interest cartoon case law you provide above alters the core constitutional law as written in its original intent and meaning, or the logical and conceptual implications of its fundamental propositions."

[_subgenius]

The Declaration of Independence itself undercuts sub's argument. The reason the declaration is necessary in the first place is that, in fact, not all people were experiencing equal rights because of the actions of the British Government. So, at the time the declaration was written, Jefferson in fact believed the same as beastie: in practice, everyone did not have the same opportunities. (Of course, Jefferson does not address ability.)

you should really look into a reading class.

If we lived in a world where all human beings were born with equal ability and opportunities

(emphasis mine)
yet once again we read you "revising" history to suit whatever argument you would rather have, since the actual argument is slapping you around.

The "experience" of these opportunities is another claim altogether different. In the case of the Declaration, both citizen and British Rule subscribed to the concept that all men were NOT created equal - thus there was no inherent conflict for there was no expectation. If you were not born the son of a King you likely did not expect that one day you could be King - everyone not having the same opportunities was a given and thus it was administered as such.

Whereas the Declaration and Constitution set forth a new "COMMON SENSE"

and this common sense directly contradicts the statement posted by beastie (cited above) - and directly affirms my statement.

Now as to your claim that all human beings are not experiencing equal opportunities/abilities - i agree....but, in the context of this thread and the topic we have been more or less adhering to...this experience is dominated by self determination, motivation, and personal choice - none of which should be infringed upon by Federal Legislation.

[_Darth J]

"In response to your observations, may I rejoinder that purple ingenuity swims ostensibly vis-a-vis triangular pineapples."