It feels like there are some areas of agreement, but much larger areas where I disagree. I think we certainly hit an important point, that you value equality over equal opportunity, whereas I value equal opportunity. I do believe that a CEO making $500million a year, may be just while the low level employee deserves $5000. The important point i think most people don't understand, an economy is not a zero sum game. The fact that the CEO is making $500mln is not relevant, as its ultimately not a fixed pie.
Yes, i am happy to take it back to the blog as my slow response time will hopefully be made up by others, but there are so many areas of disagreement, i don't know where to start.
To your earlier point, i do agree that the US could be fertile ground with Marxism, as students are predominately educated to value equality and no longer learn the constitution. Too many are taught to be victims, and not that this is one country, where you can achieve whatever you choose if you work hard.
I am still intrigued by what ultimately is at the root difference of liberals and conservatives, and increasingly i am thinking that conservatives believe people are inherently bad, and liberals believe people are inherently good. This thesis has plenty of problems, because most of my immediate family are conservative, but they also believe people are good. I could expand on this in much more detail, but i don't want to start too many avenues of discussion at once.
The above is taken from Karl's e-mail earlier.
OK, let's spend some time talking about the root differences between liberals and conservatives.
Let's begin with equal opportunity vs equality. Of course both of these concepts need definition, and hopefully definition will become clear as we back and forth on this for a bit. As I have been thinking about this in the last few weeks, I realize I have changed my opinion in this regard several times in my life time. At its basis, I think I also favor equal opportunity over equality, realizing as I say it, that in both cases we are talking about an ideal we will never achieve.
The Levitican ideal, from the OT was equal opportunity. This is thoroughly imbedded in the concept of Jubilee. In the taking of Canaan, the land was distributed equally, but it was recognized that some would succeed more than others, and in the process some would become so indebted to others, that they would even become slaves of others. But every 50 years, everything was to be again redistributed, and we start from the beginning. Should we take this is God's ideal for political and economic organization? In addition to that there are also instructions that widows and orphans are not to be taken advantage of, indeed. The strongest condemnations of the prophets is when governments turn out supporting the rich rather than the poor.
So you wish to get each person equal opportunity. Is it possible to deal with the inequities created by family wealth, sickness, differences in mental capacity, gettoization, etc. and truly create an environment where everyone has the same opportunity, if this can be done, I am completely with you. A system that fairly distributes the factors of production rather than the fruits of production, would, in my mind, be the ideal.
As to your thesis that conservatives believe people to be inherently bad, and liberals believe people to be inherently bad, I would like to hear your reasoning. I see a continuum (which is, of course an oversimplification): Anarchist, Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist. Libertarians are in there somewhere, and I'm sure there are others.
So at the one end are the Anarchists, who say that only as government is removed do we bring out the best in people. I have not studied anarchist thought, but it seems to me they must think people are inherently good. At the other extreme are the communists whom I think I understand a little better than the anarchists. They say that as the oppressor is removed, we bring out the best in people – we reach that ideal where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Surely they must think people are inherently good.
And then we have those in the center – the conservatives, liberals and socialists. I think that these three groups basically do not trust people, if the people are left to themselves. Conservatives say, if I hear you correctly, that people are bad, but the market is such an effective check that it will temper the bad in people. I, as a liberal (and I don't know if I am speaking for the majority of liberals), would say that people are good and bad, the market left to itself, brings out the bad in people. However as the market is controlled (and the fundamental challenge of government is how best to do this) it brings out the good in people.
It can’t only be done, it is done, regardless of rich or poor, mental or physical ability, we all with our God given abilities are created with equal value and have equal opportunity to become all that we want to be under a free society. Don’t you think all Canadians have this opportunity?
ReplyDeleteI don’t buy that a person growing up in a ghetto or in a wealthy family in North America/capitalism system are not both able to fulfill their dreams. Both have the same right to basic public education and thus can become whatever they wish to be, granted one road may be easier than the other but the opportunities are equal and open to all. There are many rags to riches examples. Not to say that riches define success but just saying the opportunities are there. One can still become a doctor, a teacher, a CEO, a police officer or fireman, whatever you want to be if you work hard. One doesn’t even need an Ivy league education to be successful in the finance business, Karl is prove of that. One just needs to believe in oneself and work hard, as he did. That is the beauty of the American dream.
I think the quote below or something similar Karl has often used in previous discussions. Thus I think conservatives and libertarians believe in less government and more freedom because they believe that people are good. If one would think people are bad one would set more limits.
"..But conservatism sees moral authority more in a discipline of principles than in activism. …Conservatism would enforce the principles that ensure individual freedom, and then allow "the good" to happen by "invisible hand."
(quote taken by Shelby Steele on this blog committee for justice, the great liberal/conservative divide on equal opportunity)
I think this is separate from Karl’s thinking that people are bad because we have a tendency to sin. I say people are good because we are created by God and have the God given freedom of choice to sin, unfortunately we are not perfect, yet God has given us the choice, so He must believe in us that we can do good with His help.
I think government should also believe in the good of the people and basic rules should be set, as God as given us the Ten Commandments as our guide, but the rules should not restrict our ability to live to our potential.
When Eric says by controlling the market it brings out the good in people, I can’t say I agree. I think it limits the good that the good can do, they get penalized for the bad that others do and unfortunately we know that those the seek to do bad, just find another way to do so.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Bank+dead+what+comes+next/2954597/story.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=479cbd7f-9ccd-4c06-a049-be423adebab3&p=2
I know I am slowly responding a bit at a time, then the news interrupted me.
The global bank tax mentioned in above articles is an example of what I was trying to say above in response to regulation, controls and taxes.
What sometimes appears to be an easy and popular solution unnecessarily punishes the innocent.
I cannot say if I agree with the solution proposed not my expertise. I am attaching this because I agree that the global bank tax was wrong. Punish the wrongdoers and leave the rest alone. Good for Canada for standing up to this ridiculous and outrageous solution to the crisis.
Capitalism: Your point capitalism oppressing man, yes certainly that is true because man has the freedom but when you think about it as Rev. Robert Sirico says “ capitalist actions that are successful in the long run are always others-orientated”, since capitalism is consumer based.
ReplyDeleteHere is how Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, answers the question on good markets. Some say the market is inherently good because it naturally produces benefits for people, while others say it is good only to the extent that the participants in the market are good and virtuous. Have any thoughts on this?
Williams: I would identify market efficiency as a side benefit of something far more important. The market talks about moral relationships among individuals. The free market asks us to serve our fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. In other words, I serve you by mowing your lawn, and you give me $20. This money is a kind of “certificate of performance.” I take this evidence of my service to you and go to a grocer and say, “I demand five pounds of steak that my fellow man produced.” In turn, the grocer says, “Did you serve your fellow man?” And I say, “Yes I did, and here are my $20 certificates.” That’s the morality of the market.