I'll attach a rider to Geek's:
What do you and other liberals feel is an acceptable level of goverment wellfare?
Unemployment, healthcare, housing, etc.?
I personally feel that we need to help out those that are less fortunate. Notice I said less fortunate, not lazy!
To be honest, I can't figure exactly where the line should be, but I deeply feel that someone shouldn't lose their house or be thrown on the street because they lose their job and are trying to find another one.
Someone w/o healthcare should not be forced to die from a disease we can easily cure. We should be able to give basic health care to anyone.
As far as housing, i'd be all for providing temporary housing for people trying to get on their feet.
1) Sometimes people can harm society through the use of their property, either for personal use or for economic use.What is the best way to protect against such harms? How far can we restrict private property use in the name of preventing these harms?
2) Does government have an obligation to help less fortunate citizens? Less fortunate citizens in other countries?
3) Do the rich have a greater obligation to provide for society than others? If so, how does this obligation manifest itself?
I honestly think i'm a liberal, we'll see:
1)Someone should be able to do whatever they want to their own property, as long as whatever they do only affects their own property. If they do something that can affect someone else, then I think regulation needs to come into play. If someone wants to build a coal-fired power plant, the emissions from that can affect millions, so yes, that should be regulated. If someone wants to dump toxic waste on their property, thats fine, as long as it can't seep into the groundwater that others use, for instance.
2) The less fortunate should not be overlooked. Wether it's government, or private entities that do it, I don't care, but someone shouldn't be screwed because they had the misfortune to be born to a crackwhore. Everyone deserves a chance, hell, several.
Unfortunately, I think government is the best way to assume EVERYONE has access to help. I realise it's not the most efficient, but I'm not sure how else to effectively do it.
3) Absolutely, the rich have more of an obligation to help those less fortunate. Plenty of the rich do so voluntarily, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. If you can help people, you should do it. It's good for your community, as well as good for the soul!
Now this guy is exactly the type I started this thread for!
Why do liberals fail to impose individual responsibility for individual actions?
I honestly think this is a fallacy based on a major difference of opinion.
A "conservative" wants to lock away a murderer for life, while a "liberal" wants to figure out why a murderer is a murderer, and possibly keep that person from murdering again, as well as possibly prevent future murders.
In my opinion, the "liberals" you speak of don't really feel that the murderer shouldn't be responsible for his actions, but want to get into the hows and whys. Sometimes they will lose site of the fact that a heinous crime was comitted, while trying to figure out the underlying cause.
Why do liberals preach "tolerance" and yet NOT tolerate any view beside their own?
I can ask some conservatives the same question.
Passionate arguments can bring out the worst in good people. When people start arguing like that, they stop listening and start yelling. This happens to people, both left and right.
Why do liberals think it is o.k. to kill an unborn child in the womb of it's mother, but think it is a crime to kill convicted felons who have been nothing but a drain and threat to society?
As I stated before, personally, I am not a fan of abortion. In my religion, a baby isn't alive until it takes it's first breath, much like Adam.
While I'm all for the death penalty technically, I feel that it gets applied unevenly against the poor. I also worry about how many innocent people we might put to death. I'm all for the death penalty, but I think a higher standard of guilt needs to be established, and it should be reserved for only the truly heinous of crimes.
Why do liberals think that making gun ownership illegal will prevent criminals from obtaining guns?
You got me on this one. It didn't work for alcohol in probition, it isn't working for drugs today, why would it work for guns?
Why do liberals think it makes perfect sense to force Pete to give some of his paycheck to Paul, even though Paul doesn't work?
If paul lost his job due to illness, or downsizing, and Paul needs some help until he gets another job, I think that's absolutely fine.
Why do liberals think that honorable members of our society who risk their lives to ensure order and prosperity, like Police and Soldiers, are actually fascists?
Some of them are. They ruin it for the majority that aren't, because they make the 6'oclock news.
Why do liberals think the meat rending canine teeth we have in our mouths are solely for the consumption of vegetables?
I know plenty of liberals, way out far left ones that enjoy a good steak.
As far as vegetarians, it's a choice. Not one I understand, as I think our maker intended us to eat both meat and veggies, but a choice none the less.
Why do liberals think that our country is a country for the world, when it is actually a country for U.S. citizens?
My family escaped Hitler in the '30's, so I'm glad it was an inclusive country. I think that anyone who wants to, who isn't a danger to this country, should be able to be a citizen. They should go through legal channels to do so if possible (i.e. they arent refugees from a maniacal dictator that wants to exterminate their whole race) and we should make it easier to do so legally, but not insanely so.
Why do liberals INSIST that our tax dollars be used to educate foreigners?
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Why don't liberals respect the language our constitution was written in, and the customs and traditions of our founding fathers?
Customs become outdated. Being a reform Jew, I realise that certain customs and traditions of my religion are somewhat outdated. I don't see the need to keep kosher, for instance. In the olden days, when food bourne disease was far more prevlant than it is today, keeping kosher could help keep you alive. Nowadays it's a tradition, but it doesn't hold the same necessity as it once did.
Why do liberals INSIST that inferior people be mandated in jobs that could potentially get somone killed (fire fighting, Police, Military), and yet, they see no problem with choosing the right person for the job in professional sports.
Why do liberals think that equal opportunity means automatically disqualifying potential employees based on race and gender.
Affermative action, like other bad ideas, was born out of good heartedness.
I think it's somewhat outdated now. It's a means to an end; that end being equality. Unfortinately, I think it's backfired as you point out.
Why don't liberals just pack the hell up and move to Canada, or France like they promise?
Because it's our country, just as much as it is yours. We want to fight for what we believe in, just as much as you do. [/quote]
Why are liberals so adamant about standing up for what they believe in, when it doesn't involve risk of loss of life or limb?
John Murtha, John Kerry, Max Cleland, as well as my great grandfather are all liberals, and war heros. Max Cleland gave both his legs, and part of an arm, and my Great Grandfather gave his life.
What does it take to finally get a liberal to grow the hell up?
I'll leave this for others to answer, as i'm at a loss for a polite response right now.
