Who's nicer? Left or Right?

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Darwinism.

We once had a professor visit our home and have dinner. Non-member. The subject of African poverty came up. And this professor said, we shouldn't be sending aid, we should allow them to fend for themselves. He made a survival of the fittest argument, that we shouldn't prop them up.

After he left, my father told me that that man was wrong, and that the gospel requires us to help people that are suffering.

Made an impression on me.

I do agree that the gospel requires us to help people that are suffering; however, I don't support coercing individuals, which is what all redistribution of wealth schemes basically do, into helping. Individuals must have their agency.

I think individuals should voluntarily contribute to the aid of homeless/hungry/helpless people everywhere and I have no problem with government being the means by which to coordinate and disburse those voluntary contributions. I do have a problem with taxing someone (i.e. coercing them) in order to generate those contributions.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I do agree that the gospel requires us to help people that are suffering; however, I don't support coercing individuals, which is what all redistribution of wealth schemes basically do, into helping. Individuals must have their agency.

I think individuals should voluntarily contribute to the aid of homeless/hungry/helpless people everywhere and I have no problem with government being the means by which to coordinate and disburse those voluntary contributions. I do have a problem with taxing someone (i.e. coercing them) in order to generate those contributions.

sounds like you think taxes should be voluntary.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I feel like the more compassionate ideology is on the left. (I know people will disagree, but bear with me...) However, I find myself often surprised by the kindness of people whose ideologies I often find very harsh; on the other hand, some of the slimiest, selfish people I know have very compassionate political ideas. My wife is a much more thoughtful and compassionate person than I am, yet she's also much more conservative in her political views. I know that's only one example, but I can think of a whole lot more, almost to the point of a rule--the more compassionate game you talk, the meaner and more selfish you are.

Anyone else notice this?

No offense ER, but I think this is a silly question. Neither side has a monopoly on niceness or compassion. There are usually jerks and saints on both sides of an issue.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I do agree that the gospel requires us to help people that are suffering; however, I don't support coercing individuals, which is what all redistribution of wealth schemes basically do, into helping. Individuals must have their agency.

I think individuals should voluntarily contribute to the aid of homeless/hungry/helpless people everywhere and I have no problem with government being the means by which to coordinate and disburse those voluntary contributions. I do have a problem with taxing someone (i.e. coercing them) in order to generate those contributions.

I agree. Taxes should be for purposes that can be proven to help the country, not individuals. If you can prove that a portion of my taxes goes to provide housing for the poor helps me, then fine, taxes should be used that way.

If my taxes are going to help others and not me, then they shouldn't have the right to confiscate (sp) my money for that purpose. It should be left up to me whether I want to help someone or not.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I agree. Taxes should be for purposes that can be proven to help the country, not individuals. If you can prove that a portion of my taxes goes to provide housing for the poor helps me, then fine, taxes should be used that way.

If my taxes are going to help others and not me, then they shouldn't have the right to confiscate (sp) my money for that purpose. It should be left up to me whether I want to help someone or not.

weird. I thought a country was composed of individuals.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

sounds like you think taxes should be voluntary.

Depends on the purpose of the tax.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Depends on the purpose of the tax.

So you do support taxes. In other words, you don't categorically reject taxes.

that's good, because otherwise you would be in cuckoo category, holed up in a cabin, with FBI agents shooting bullets through your window.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

weird. I thought a country was composed of individuals.

That is really the best you have as a comeback. So you believe every individual in this country should be treated exactly alike regardless of what they do and the choices they make.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So you do support taxes. In other words, you don't categorically reject taxes.

that's good, because otherwise you would be in cuckoo category, holed up in a cabin, with FBI agents shooting bullets through your window.

Taxes are theoretically voluntary in the U.S. in the sense that you have the choice to leave and go somewhere else with no taxes, if such a place even exists. Unfortunately, this philosophy of "if you don't like it, then leave" is not practical on a national level. It is, however, much more practical on a local level. Thus, I make distinctions based upon the level at which taxes are collected (e.g. federal, state, county, city, etc.) Some taxes are more appropriate at a smaller level because one can more easily determine whether or not the benefits accrued from those taxes are worth their cost.

One thing that has always fascinated me is the tendency of people that want certain social benefits (e.g. eduction, healthcare, housing, etc.) to want them on a federal, or sometimes even a global, level. Why not do things on a smaller level and let those that are interested in those social benefits move and those that aren't can leave? I've never understood this need to do everything on a national level.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

No offense ER, but I think this is a silly question. Neither side has a monopoly on niceness or compassion. There are usually jerks and saints on both sides of an issue.

Of course it's a silly question, and I'm not truly implying that all liberals are jerks and all republicans are nice. I'm just making an observation from my experience--there are obviously exceptions.