Contest of Losers

[heavens_steed]

I'm just wondering if there is anyone out there who is a bigger loser than I am and can usurp my self-designated title of dishonor. Granted, it's not a contest anyone would want to win but out of everyone I know, I think I'm the biggest loser. And no, I don't mean losing great amounts of weight from exercising and dieting because that would be a

Comments

[footpad]

As with corelog's statement, I can interpret that as meaning one of three things:

(a) It's a caricature. I like it.

(b) You mis-spoke. The statement wasn't actually considered all that thoroughly and I'm taking it more seriously than it was meant. Fair enough. *wag*

(Deep breath. *wag*)

(c) It's a portrayal of fringe nutcases, not people who are politically relevant; a red herring. In the interests of constructive political debate, please recalibrate your view of the political spectrum to represent what people are actually proposing.

(d) You have lost your basic recognition of left-wingers as people with a moral framework akin, if somewhat differently slanted in one respect, to your own. Your most urgent political exercise should be to reestablish that fundamental empathy. Without it, you cannot contribute constructively to the political debate.

Er. That was three, right? All this left-wing thinking has done such terrible things to my ability to count...

Having spent a fair amount of time mired in point (d), and having acquaintances who still are on both sides, I can attest to the fact that politics makes a lot more sense, and is also much less aggravating, when you pay attention to remembering that it's people you're dealing with, and the vast majority of them are basically as morally competent as you are.

It's just bloody difficult in the current political climate, where each side is doing its level best to persuade its devotees that the other side are a bunch of morally-stunted ogres. So much bullshit.

[heavens_steed]

I don't think it's any of those. Maybe you could call it a caricature. I would prefer the term "hyperbole." It's a statement representing an extreme or exaggerated version of the truth. It's partially jest and partially serious.

Firstly, remember that I said "the far left" which would automatically exclude ordinary weak liberals or left-leaning moderates.

Secondly, no, I don't believe that even extreme leftists literally think they have no other duty to their fellow human beings than to pay taxes.

However, it is unquestionably and demonstrably true that leftists believe that the private citizen is primarily responsible for fewer duties to their fellow human beings than conservatives do. Conservatives also make a greater emphasis on personal responsibility. Is this because leftists are inherently less empathetic and less caring than those on the right? Not necessarily. It's because the left believes that the government is better able to help their neighbors, community members, and their nation at large than individuals or private organizations.

This "benevolent" government must be supported by taxes and enough taxes to fund sufficiently large welfare and entitlement programs.

Therefore, by paying taxes, the leftist thinks she is fulfilling her obligation to help society and doesn't need to do anything else because she is already supporting, in her view, the most effective means of exercising social justice.

How do we know this is true? Because there is evidence to back it up. In the United States, secular liberals are least charitable demographic in the nation. Meaning, they are the least likely to volunteer or give money to charitable causes. Religious conservatives are the most likely to give to charitable causes and give the most time and money to helping the disadvantaged. Religious liberals come second, and secular conservatives come third.

Government welfare and private charity are at direct odds with each other. As government welfare programs have grown, private charity has declined. Private charity involves individuals actually acting on their own accord to help others without coercion, as you yourself have done. Government welfare means wealth redistribution, taking money from others that earned it by force and giving it to those that did not earn it. Which act do you think is more virtuous and more representative of one's duty?

Leftists are not especially evil or morally-stunted ogres. But they do place an irrational faith in the higher power of government to solve most or all of the problems in society instead of seeing individuals, families, communities, and private organizations (including religious institutions) as the solution. Conservatives do.

I really hope you didn't take this personally because I most certainly would never apply such a statement to you.

*hugs*

[footpad]

Okay. *wag* I can go along with that.

I do totally agree that, as a left-winger in a left-wing country, there are many charitable causes that I feel no obligation to support. Here in Germany, it's been deemed to follow directly from the Constitution, that the state must ensure that every human has the elements of subsistence, shelter and medical care. Give to a hospital trust? Why bother?

I do have a set of charities that I support by subscription, but it's notable that none of them look to the needs of underprivileged people in my own country.

[heavens_steed]

I've never heard of a charity that doesn't look to the needs of the underprivileged. That's what charities generally do. Is Europe that screwed up and so dependent on government that proper charity doesn't exist anymore there?

[footpad]

Whew, talk about a leading question!

I'll answer it tit-for-tat: is America so screwed up that its entire charitable effort has to go to supporting the basic needs of humans?

My supported charities include: an environmental group, a political citizens-rights lobby, a global human-rights organisation (although I'm reconsidering that one), the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the wonderfully prosaic Humane Slaughter Association, and a group supporting the conservation and research of wolves.

[heavens_steed]

I would recommend you investigate the history of charity, including where the word itself originates from. The very concept of charity has always been about helping the downtrodden in society. Political lobbying or activists groups are NOT charities. That's an abuse of the label. That's not to say that some of those organizations aren't worth supporting, but I would not consider them charities under the proper definition of the word. Just saying.

[footpad]

Ahhuh. I was using the term for organisations officially designated as 'registered charities' under UK law. English people are used to describing a wide variety of such benevolent organisations as "charities", even though they don't fit the pure definition. So, again we trip over a matter of semantics. Let's drop that thread.