Liberals, conservatives...
So we've been having this big debate over liberalism vs. conservativism lately... I don't really adhere to everything that liberals or conservatives or socialists or libertarianists have to say but I like to pick and choose from each of their policies which makes sense to me.
I guess I would consider myself a moderate at heart: conservative on international and monetary economic policy, liberal on environmental issues and personal rights, socialist on health care, welfare, and fiscal policies, and libertarian/liberal on foreign policy.
I like the free market. I don't think we should have protectionist tariffs and policies to protect our domestic interests. Does this mean money is running out of our country and into other countries? (China?). Yes. But if you've ever taken a course in macroeconomics, one of the first concepts they teach is that if Country B can produce an item, say, computers, more efficiently than Country A, and if Country A can produce food more efficiently than Country B, then both countries would benefit by trading food and computers between each other. This policy resounds everywhere, and we're seeing the fruits of it in China today (they make cheaper TV's, we make better video games).
The environment, however, is something that we all must care for. Cancer rates have been increasing greatly in the past 100 years, directly due to the pollution and chemicals we introduce into our bodies and the environment.
I believe a woman has a right to choose, and I don't believe in the death penalty. We can't assume that by making abortions illegal we will discourage women having babies; accidents do happen and the law should not ruin the life of a woman through a common mistake.
I think we should also take care of our poor (social welfare, health care, larger government spending). Economics states that the government spends a certain amount and there's a "trickle-down effect/spending multiplier" that its citizens receive. This means that if the government receives $100 in taxes, it will spend $100 on its citizens, and if the "spending multiplier" is 0.9, then the citizen who receives the $100 will save $10 and spend $90. The next citizen that receives the $90 will save $9 and spend $81, and so on and so forth. If the government taxes less, then the citizens will have more money, but instead of the first citizen spending $100 (which the government would've spent), the citizen spends $90. This means that there is $10 less circulating around the economy, which, by analyzing the "trickle-down effect/spending multiplier" there will actually be $100 less circulating through the economy. In other words, government spending is a good thing because the government gives all the money back. Usually more (i.e. deficit spending).
I'll explain why I'm socialist on welfare and health care in a bit.
I'm libertarian/liberal on foreign policy because I believe in 2 ideas:
1. Governments should not interfere with other countries (it's none of our business, and usually by doing so we breed some form of hate for ourself in the affected country -- i'm not talking about charity, btw)
2. We should work towards a unified world state. (If we looked at each other as separate states instead of separate countries, we would get along better).
OKAY.
That wasn't the point of my post, however. I wanted to post why I was socialist on welfare policies, and I'd thought of a good example:
Let's say you have 3 children. One is very successful. One is doing okay, and the last child is just going nowhere. He's poor, uneducated, lazy, etc.
What would you do in this situation? All three are your children, and you love them all. You can't just leave the no-good child alone; at family dinners and social events he's out there, and causes you to be uncomfortable. How would you teach him to correct himself?
I think conservatives would say "just leave him alone and he'll eventually get it" or "stop giving him money, he'll learn how to make it himself". Perhaps those will work, but I don't think they're very effective.
I believe the best way would be to care about him and make his life better. Give him personal attention, pay for his bills, and through that he can see how good life can be and that he needs to work hard. If you need help, maybe you can ask your rich kid to give some money to the poor kid and that would show the poor kid that being rich makes life more comfortable.
In all this you, as a parent, can never be discouraging or negative. You can never say "oh you're such a lazy person, look at your brother, he's doing so well". Those words are just negative and might inspire, but it might just breed malcontent. As a parent you should be completely selfless -- that way your child can't show any malcontent and whenever your kid ponders the situation he can only feel bad for himself.
Just like this, in society we can't act like we're aloof and giving free money to the poor. We have to act like we really care about them and really want them to succeed by doing everything we possibly can.
It's kind of like in classes: a professor teaches his students and can leave them alone and not care too much and maybe that will lead to some kids researching the work on their own and becoming great... but the best professors pay personal attention to their students and work with them to inspire them to work harder.
So overall, I think I'm a socialist on welfare policies because we do really need to care about everybody (not just the sick, or poor, but the middle-class and rich too). Not just monetary care, but having an actual conscience and a desire to benefit all humankind. That's more important than providing welfare checks or health care benefits, but those go hand-in-hand. If you selflessly care about other human beings, then you want them to benefit regardless of the means. Conservatives argue that this would cost too much, but whenever a Republican president is elected, defense spending increases by billions, sometimes even hundreds of billions. We should take some of that money out of building up military technology that will be eclipsed someday and instead put it into jobs for the poor, to build public transportation systems, to renovate the projects, and to provide health care (which will, in turn, fund the medical community = more bio-medical research).
I guess I would consider myself a moderate at heart: conservative on international and monetary economic policy, liberal on environmental issues and personal rights, socialist on health care, welfare, and fiscal policies, and libertarian/liberal on foreign policy.
I like the free market. I don't think we should have protectionist tariffs and policies to protect our domestic interests. Does this mean money is running out of our country and into other countries? (China?). Yes. But if you've ever taken a course in macroeconomics, one of the first concepts they teach is that if Country B can produce an item, say, computers, more efficiently than Country A, and if Country A can produce food more efficiently than Country B, then both countries would benefit by trading food and computers between each other. This policy resounds everywhere, and we're seeing the fruits of it in China today (they make cheaper TV's, we make better video games).
The environment, however, is something that we all must care for. Cancer rates have been increasing greatly in the past 100 years, directly due to the pollution and chemicals we introduce into our bodies and the environment.
I believe a woman has a right to choose, and I don't believe in the death penalty. We can't assume that by making abortions illegal we will discourage women having babies; accidents do happen and the law should not ruin the life of a woman through a common mistake.
I think we should also take care of our poor (social welfare, health care, larger government spending). Economics states that the government spends a certain amount and there's a "trickle-down effect/spending multiplier" that its citizens receive. This means that if the government receives $100 in taxes, it will spend $100 on its citizens, and if the "spending multiplier" is 0.9, then the citizen who receives the $100 will save $10 and spend $90. The next citizen that receives the $90 will save $9 and spend $81, and so on and so forth. If the government taxes less, then the citizens will have more money, but instead of the first citizen spending $100 (which the government would've spent), the citizen spends $90. This means that there is $10 less circulating around the economy, which, by analyzing the "trickle-down effect/spending multiplier" there will actually be $100 less circulating through the economy. In other words, government spending is a good thing because the government gives all the money back. Usually more (i.e. deficit spending).
I'll explain why I'm socialist on welfare and health care in a bit.
I'm libertarian/liberal on foreign policy because I believe in 2 ideas:
1. Governments should not interfere with other countries (it's none of our business, and usually by doing so we breed some form of hate for ourself in the affected country -- i'm not talking about charity, btw)
2. We should work towards a unified world state. (If we looked at each other as separate states instead of separate countries, we would get along better).
OKAY.
That wasn't the point of my post, however. I wanted to post why I was socialist on welfare policies, and I'd thought of a good example:
Let's say you have 3 children. One is very successful. One is doing okay, and the last child is just going nowhere. He's poor, uneducated, lazy, etc.
What would you do in this situation? All three are your children, and you love them all. You can't just leave the no-good child alone; at family dinners and social events he's out there, and causes you to be uncomfortable. How would you teach him to correct himself?
I think conservatives would say "just leave him alone and he'll eventually get it" or "stop giving him money, he'll learn how to make it himself". Perhaps those will work, but I don't think they're very effective.
I believe the best way would be to care about him and make his life better. Give him personal attention, pay for his bills, and through that he can see how good life can be and that he needs to work hard. If you need help, maybe you can ask your rich kid to give some money to the poor kid and that would show the poor kid that being rich makes life more comfortable.
In all this you, as a parent, can never be discouraging or negative. You can never say "oh you're such a lazy person, look at your brother, he's doing so well". Those words are just negative and might inspire, but it might just breed malcontent. As a parent you should be completely selfless -- that way your child can't show any malcontent and whenever your kid ponders the situation he can only feel bad for himself.
Just like this, in society we can't act like we're aloof and giving free money to the poor. We have to act like we really care about them and really want them to succeed by doing everything we possibly can.
It's kind of like in classes: a professor teaches his students and can leave them alone and not care too much and maybe that will lead to some kids researching the work on their own and becoming great... but the best professors pay personal attention to their students and work with them to inspire them to work harder.
So overall, I think I'm a socialist on welfare policies because we do really need to care about everybody (not just the sick, or poor, but the middle-class and rich too). Not just monetary care, but having an actual conscience and a desire to benefit all humankind. That's more important than providing welfare checks or health care benefits, but those go hand-in-hand. If you selflessly care about other human beings, then you want them to benefit regardless of the means. Conservatives argue that this would cost too much, but whenever a Republican president is elected, defense spending increases by billions, sometimes even hundreds of billions. We should take some of that money out of building up military technology that will be eclipsed someday and instead put it into jobs for the poor, to build public transportation systems, to renovate the projects, and to provide health care (which will, in turn, fund the medical community = more bio-medical research).
1 Comments:
As I said to Chris about the competition between conservatives and liberals, both sides (except the radical wings) believe in the same goals, but the difference is to how to reach those goals.
One of the problems I wrote about in one of my research papers in college is the general decline of political participation by moderates. Meanwhile, political participation among radicals (on both sides) have been increasing. In the end, we get polarized partisan bickering who will never compromise and find common ground.
By
David, at 2/20/2006 11:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home