Not a soundbite, so most won't read

[This_person]

What do we call conservative, and what do we call liberal, in daily life? A conservative explains behavior spiritually, and personalizes responsibility. In Aristotelian terms, the principle of motion is within us. A liberal, by contrast, explains behavior mechanically, and externalizes responsibility: the principle of motion is outside us. Thus, in the typical policy debate, a liberal makes excuses for the human agent, and a conservative places blame. The spark of the liberal argument — He didn’t have the same opportunities you did — meets the conservative conceptual firewall: Lots of people start poor, but still find ways to make it.
- Mark Riebling, "Prospectus For a Critique of Conservative Reason (Sept. 2009).

 

[Larry Gude]

Link, please.

 

[This_person]

Link, please.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110708020244/markriebling.blogs.com/sources_and_methods/a-cr.html

 

[Larry Gude]

The challenge with setting aside environment and simplifying everything down to personal choice is that not everyone comes from the same place be it traditions, customs, parenting, neighbors, schooling or behavior expectations. A black kid whose entire history is based on the slowly evolving realities from slavery forward simply is not going to be in the same place in terms of world view, expectations and general ideas of values, morality, how the world works and meaning of life as a multi generational white American.

That said, just as two brothers, virtually same reality, parenting, environment, can grow up very differently on those things, a person from a poor background can seemingly come from the best of traditions.

That said, we're speaking in general and not of exceptions, yes? This is where a value system placed solely, or nearly so, on individual choice and responsibility is most vulnerable: far, far too many examples of the individual being victimized by larger circumstances. Imagine taking responsibility and leaving eastern Europe in, say, 1911, for the US only to be drafted and sent to the wars you were trying to avoid.

Or being a good, responsible employee and the company either ####s you badly or some other force wipes out your job.

Or being a Muslim and coming here to practice your faith AND respect others only to face hatred for retaining your religious freedom.

Or the ghetto kid trying to work, study, do better and facing the relentless lure of easy money and success in the drug trade. Or advancement in the military or gummint requiring you to look the other way at times.

There is far too much evidence of the leveling wind of environment to stand solely on the pious ground of individual choice and responsibility. There will always be the exceptional but you don't base policy on the one or the few. That school of conservative thought tries to equate, in effect, philosophy majors schooled in the classics with grade schoolers staring puberty in the face. "You're free! Make better choices. Be responsible " yeah? Based on what knowledge base or background? Yours?

There is no history of the conservative right building, slowly, consistently, over time, the credibility with power to justify trust. It, like liberalism, has too much inconsistency, hypocrisy and outright betrayal to merit some sort of leadership role based on what amounts to 'do as we say, not as we do...'

 

[This_person]

The challenge with setting aside environment and simplifying everything down to personal choice is that not everyone comes from the same place be it traditions, customs, parenting, neighbors, schooling or behavior expectations. A black kid whose entire history is based on the slowly evolving realities from slavery forward simply is not going to be in the same place in terms of world view, expectations and general ideas of values, morality, how the world works and meaning of life as a multi generational white American.

That said, just as two brothers, virtually same reality, parenting, environment, can grow up very differently on those things, a person from a poor background can seemingly come from the best of traditions.

That said, we're speaking in general and not of exceptions, yes? This is where a value system placed solely, or nearly so, on individual choice and responsibility is most vulnerable: far, far too many examples of the individual being victimized by larger circumstances. Imagine taking responsibility and leaving eastern Europe in, say, 1911, for the US only to be drafted and sent to the wars you were trying to avoid.

Or being a good, responsible employee and the company either ####s you badly or some other force wipes out your job.

Or being a Muslim and coming here to practice your faith AND respect others only to face hatred for retaining your religious freedom.

Or the ghetto kid trying to work, study, do better and facing the relentless lure of easy money and success in the drug trade. Or advancement in the military or gummint requiring you to look the other way at times.

There is far too much evidence of the leveling wind of environment to stand solely on the pious ground of individual choice and responsibility. There will always be the exceptional but you don't base policy on the one or the few. That school of conservative thought tries to equate, in effect, philosophy majors schooled in the classics with grade schoolers staring puberty in the face. "You're free! Make better choices. Be responsible " yeah? Based on what knowledge base or background? Yours?

There is no history of the conservative right building, slowly, consistently, over time, the credibility with power to justify trust. It, like liberalism, has too much inconsistency, hypocrisy and outright betrayal to merit some sort of leadership role based on what amounts to 'do as we say, not as we do...'

So, you're saying there needs to be a reasonable mix, yes?

That would imply that we need to foster a fair and equitable environment while simultaneously expecting people, through their individual choices, to gain from that environment. If they have the right environment, AND they take personal responsibility for their actions, they should succeed.

Are we agreeable to that type of philosophy?

Assuming we are, what does that mean in terms of government?


To me, it means there should be decent schools all around, and if the local government cannot provide it people should be able to find a private school and have whatever would be spent per student in the public school be instead provided to the private school via the same government. Any difference in costs should be paid by the parents or refunded to the government. That seems fair.