Why some good, religious people are Liberals

As a Christian, I have Godly compassion toward most people (have to be honest, there are a few I can't warm to). My pragmatism is not seperate from my Christianity. It is part-and-parcel with it.

Pragmatically, public schools are failing (just to use your example -- there are lots of topics we could choose from). That's not even a debate at this point. The declining scores for education are pretty much in free fall. So, practically speaking, public schools are a bad idea for all children -- rich, poor, black, white or purple with orange pockadots.

Now, Christian compassion comes in and, if I don't apply pragmatism, I'm going to warm right up to some Bill Clinton-lookalike who insists that "society" can win this battle to educate the nation's poor. Well, I can't set aside my practicality just because some smooth-talking politician says I should, so now I've stumbled to a stop to really put some thought into what works.

Public school isn't working any longer and the decline really started to show when we started throwing more money at it, so if I'm exercising Christian compassion, I'm not going to lay God's money down on a failed system. I'm going to determine what IS working and put God's money there.

That's not lack of compassion, it's just recognizing that compassion should go as far as it is able, not just prop up failed systems because some people think they're more "egalitarian" than more efficient systems.

And, the really amazing thing to what I've just written is that the public school administrators own my compassionate support for school vouchers to allow poor children to attend real schools to their own "outcome-based" ideas. That which produces the best outcome is the better means -- at least in the case of education. Aiming for the best outcome is the compassionate choice.

.. for visiting and commenting.

I agree that pragmatism is what keeps intelligent, compassionate people from accepting the usual myths of collectivism.

Note that I do not denigrate religion, or the religious choices that people make. My argument is that altruism has become the very basis of the moral code for most people because of its religious connection.

Most people use their moral code as a sort of 'barometer' to calibrate their thoughts about social, political and economic choices. Therefore, it becomes difficult to have a cohesive moral (and pragmatic) position against socialism.

This lack of cohesiveness creates a fertile ground for collectivist principles.

.. and for your comments!

Your application of pragmatism (particularly in economics) is great - and your posts are factual, well-reasoned and rational. I happen to agree with your points, and with your economic arguments against most of the liberal myths.

But, religious principles urge us to subscribe to the theory of selflessness or of sacrifice as a virtue. That introduces a vulnerability in the moral argument for Capitalism. For example, a pragmatic altruist would say that Capitalism helps people, and therefore it is good. An altruist would say that selfishness is sinful, and that we must devise a system that "brings out the best in people" and makes people selfless.

I believe that it is this dichotomy that makes religious people lean instinctively towards socialism. It requires an intellectual effort to pull away from that mindset. You might say that those who don't see through the fog are not particularly smart - but the fact remains that half of our population seems to agree with concepts such as increasing the minimum wage, welfare, universal health care, etc.

Pragmatism as the moral basis for Capitalism also shows its inconsistency in foreign policy areas, because compassion (or altruism) would have us extend ourselves in poverty stricken places around the globe.

Altruism creates a sense of un-earned guilt for our affluence - until all humans can have four square meals a day. Yes, we could respond (rightly) by suggesting that those poverty stricken countries should try capitalism. But altruism would tug at the old heart strings .. as if often does.

The problem that I have is that it forces people to accept an intellectual argument OVER the moral code that is ingrained in them while growing up.

And, despite the overwhelming facts and history that appear to make an ironclad case against socialism, we're faced with the fact that most Americans are not convinced of the MORALITY of Capitalism.

At best, most Americans think that Capitalism works because it is aligned with the baser, selfish aspects of human nature.

DROPPING A BOWLING BALL FROM A HWY OVERPASS:
The mindless brute who engages in this act, does not have 'noble intentions' in mind. Most liberals, on the other hand, are well-intentioned. They do want to uplift the masses, or whatever their particular bromide of the day happens to be. The other kind of unthinking liberal is beyond any hope of intellectual salvage.

DISEASES BORNE BY EUROPEAN SETTLERS:
Yes, lacking the knowledge of germs and/or the mechanism of disease, the European settlers did NOT commit a moral breach in that particular aspect. In fact, as theorized in Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel (which is a great read, despite it's flaws), it could very well have been the other way around - that the Europeans lacked immunity to diseases that were prevalent in America.

Your point that armed with the knowledge of the efficacy of Capitalism (vs Socialism) it is MORALLY wrong to be in favor of Socialism. No argument from me!

But, how do we explain the predominance of those who don't understand that? And, believe me, there are Conservatives who don't understand the moral superiority of Capitalism as well - as evidenced by a sort of "cheering on the home team" approach to their politics.

If we can get to the crux of that, we will find it a lot easier to win debates - and 'hearts & minds'. I believe that there are (still) enough thinking people on the other side that can be persuaded via a coherent moral AND pragmatic approach. If either component is missing, it weakens the argument.

This post purports to answer why good people can be liberal, and reveals far more than just that. I believe liberalism to be dangerous because it doesn't just use intentions as the basis to judge what is moral, it does so at the denial of reality and the falsehood of thinking your social vision is greater than another. This was encapsulated in your insight that "if Religion is good, a system that is based on altruism must also be good. How can Religious people remain consistent and object to a selfless economic system?"

This is the foundation of liberal thought, and because they are based in good intentions of caring for the poor, unprivileged, etc, it means if one opposes their policies then one is morally lacking in some regard.

I have a question I like to ask liberals that hits at the core of their vision of inequality in the world. Usually they tend to be favoring some new social program (like universal healthcare.) I simply propose that since cutting taxes will increase government revenue, we should cut taxes in order to fund the program. The idea of helping others at the expense of their socialist ideas always causes a moral dilemma. I either than get to sit as they try the verbal gymnastics to justify why that can't be done, or I get to teach them the Laffer Curve and a little reality.

What surprises me most when I do this is that they often when confronted with allocation of resources is that rather than incorporating it into their argument, they try to dismiss it. It is as if reality is beneath consideration.

It surely is easier to believe that we live in a world where "problems" and "crises" can simply be "solved," if only we have the moral fortitude to do so. It is much harder to understand the intricate reality behind such. In fact, nobody could hope to understand the all the implications that liberal "solutions" entail on every individual, which is why the remedy to liberal thought is a correct understanding of freedom and a desire to maintain it.

Yet, as you pointed out in your reference to the type of slavery we live in today, to implement the liberal solution is to force others to be as "moral" as they are through coercion. "When a politician calls for higher taxes to fund one of those 'feel-good' programs, s/he is promoting a coercive confiscation of our money. Since money is obtained from work, such coercive taxation is synonymous with enslavement." If the fruits of labor go to another, such as the government, then it is slavery of different degree, not kind.

That the results of liberal policies cause more harm than good is not acceptable to those who believe that a system that is based on altruism must also be good. In fact, it tends to reinforce it. New "problems" are now present, which must also be "solved." It is rarely noted that those problems were created from previous solutions.

But I also believe this is the greatest ally in the war of ideas. Since there are well intentioned people who support leftist policies because they believe them to be moral, if they can learn enough to see through the facade, they may flee the party line. Then it simply is a matter of teaching them how to truly be altruistic. Thus conservatives have two major obstacles to overcome. Revealing the errors of the other side and correcting mis perceptions of conservative principles.

"Incidentally, this is not a argument against charity - which is a VOLUNTARY form of altruism" Indeed, it is an argument FOR charity. I believe the most moral system, and the one that has its basis in the teachings of Jesus, is that people should choose to be charitable. If they are coerced, it is not counted unto them for righteousness as they did not do it of their own free will. If they voluntarily part with their wealth to help those around them, the world will become a better place. The only way to have people with the capacity to do that is to allow each individual the right to expand their own wealth as much as they can, as long it is not at the expense of others. Criminals, no. People working to provide others with products and services the people desire in their own quests to better their lives, yes. This is the parable of the talents.

The Parables of The Talents and The Good Samaritan. Good ammo for conversations with the good, religious liberals.

While I firmly believe in captialism as the best way to live out altruism, and pragmatism is necessary in discerning that which is good, I still struggle with economics and politics in early Christianity.

The author of the Gospel of Luke & Acts of the Apostles presents some starkly Marxist views, including the mother of God sounding like Jane Fonda in Luke 2:51-53; and a collective economy in Acts 2:44-45, with extreme consequences for violating that collective compact in Acts 5:1-11.
(So much for property rights)

So much of the Christian ethic is built on that which flows out from us to others rather than that which we receive, and the liberals seem to have captured this concept much better than we conservatives have.

Thanks for visiting .. and for your comments.

I have been reading Dr. Sowell's "Applied Economics - Thinking beyond Stage One" and he identifies the difference between 'political thinking' and 'economic analysis'.

Quoting Dr. Sowell, "Political thinking tends to conceive of policies, institutions or programs in terms of their hoped-for results - drug prevention programs, profit-making enterprises, public-interest law firms, gun control laws and so forth. But for purposes of economic analysis, what matters is not what goals are being sought but what incentives and constraints are being created in pursuit of those goals".

It sounds as though you are making a similar point - in that well-intentioned Leftists are as good as anyone else in Political thinking, but fall short in the area of economic analysis if it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of political correctness.

What I find puzzling is when trained economists (e.g. Paul Krugman of the NYTimes) allow their political leanings to overcome their intellect and training! There is really no excuse for that - when even a non-economist (like me) can see through their nonsense.

BTW, I'm trying to use the labels 'Leftist' or 'Socialist' instead of the 'L word', which has been mis-applied to modern day Leftists. It is one of the semantic idiocies of our time that the word 'Liberal' has become a pejorative.

I have a suspicion that you don't know much about the bible. First of all, there is no such reference as Luke 2:53, perhaps you mistyped...

Also, the "collective economy" you state as referred to in acts is precisely what was discussed in this article. Notice that the "extreme consequences for violating that collective compact in Acts 5:1-11" were NOT for violating the collective compact. Ananias and Sapphira were not punished for violating the collective compact. In fact, to VOLUNTARILY give what you had was the type of compact that existed, not a government imposing such charity at gunpoint. They weren't even punished for withholding some of their possessions. They were punished for lying about it. They held back part and yet said it was everything they had. That was the sin.

Voluntary donations are what Christianity holds as the virtue, and esteeming your brother as yourself, not a Marxist fantasy of equality. If that were the case, all Christians who owned more than one pair of shoes would be guilty of "having too much" as long as there were those on earth with no shoes.

The real sin is to work for your aggrandizement at the expense of those around you. Any man who collects wealth can be either selfish or selfless, depending on how he chooses to use it. Socialists look at the outward amounts, when one should look at the motive of the heart. For example, I just finished my taxes. I have given over 15% of my income this year to charity, VOLUNTARILY. (no, I'm not rich. If I had another kid I'd be considered at the poverty line...) Its easy to preach that all should be equal... harder to practice it. How often do we read of the liberal states being less charitable than conservatives?

Its a mindset. And its wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to visit and comment! From your 'handle', I would guess that you are an ordained minister?

I must confess that I am not up on the economio and political aspects of early Christianity. My thesis (as you have no doubt inferred) is to point out a logical vulnerability in the Conservative predilection towards a Capitalist model in economics - which ties into politics.

Religious Conservatives make up a high percentage of Republican-leaning voters in our country. Clearly, conservatives can never win an election if they lose that base. However, I think that an objective set of principles can be formulated that are not inconsistent with Judeo-Christian values (except for the Achilles heel of altruism).

Therefore, while we should feel free to bring our personal Religious values into political thinking, there is a danger in introducing Religion-inspired altruism into economic analysis.

In an ideological contest between altruism and self-interest, the latter must be promoted. The consequences of LEADING with self-interest (in defiance of all conventional political thought) will actually turn out to be positive.

This will win over left-of-center pragmatic voters who are troubled with the Socialist tendencies of the Democrats.

In retrospect, that post may have come across as a personal attack. I didn't mean it that way, even if I did write it in an emotional fury.

I just get easily annoyed when people state something in scripture that just ain't so...

Sorry about that, Libertybob, it was Luke 1:53 I was referencing.

Ah. Ok. Still don't think that sounds like Jane Fonda, though. Tell me, what think ye of the parables of the Talents and good Samaritan? Do they not state that we should strive for wealth to help others?
The Samaritan, after all, must have been well to do. How else could he have afforded to stop his affairs and pay for the healing of the injured man? How else could he have paid for the hotel, and that whatever else was necessary to care for the man that would be paid upon the Samaritan's return?
Let me know, but perhaps you could post on my blog. Not only are we digressing from the subject, but I don't really want to annoy Voice of Reason at all. He's a great poster but since he identifies himself as the religious left wing atheism, this may not be up his alley... If I misunderstood you VoR, please correct me! I'm not too anxious to be on your bad side!

I am 'laissez faire' when it comes to religion as well as politics & economics!

While I do think that there is a vulnerability in introducing ALL aspects of religion (e.g. altruism) into the political and economic forum, I certainly would not be so presumptuous as to exclude religious VALUES from the debate.

I could certainly learn a thing or two from a discussion of the parables between you and the Rev.

Mmm, personally I do not consider the descriptions here of liberal even remotely accurate.

In Brown vs. the Board, education was ruled to be a *right* by the Supreme Court.

Education is a chicken and egg problem when it comes to democracy. As Jefferson pointed out, an uneducated populace cannot be made into a Democracy.

The Puritans started the principle of community, or public, education for the sole purpose of teaching people to understand the Bible. Catholics, in days of yore, believed one necessarily need a priest to get to heaven. Thus confessionals, etc.

Martin Luther started the protestant movement which eventually came to the conclusion that priests were not needed and that everyone should read the Bible to reach salvation.

The Puritans took that to mean eduction for its community.

American democracy is a direct decendent of this notion of education being paramount to being a Christian and further a citizen who can intelligently vote.

Without an educated society there can be no democracy. Without understanding of the Bible, a prostetant cannot be a Christian.

Education then is has in the modern sense become a mandatory right guaranteed by the Constitution in order for citizens to function. Citizens in a democracy are part of the government, they need to vote.

None of the above argument has anything to do with Capitalism or the altruism of Religion, the two poles of your thesis. The real reason education is a right in this society is that education is a requirement for salvation and democracy. Altruism has nothing to do with it. It is simply necessary for survival.

Similarly, Barak Obama has come out said that he believes universal health care is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, which is purposed to provide for the General Welfare.

A right, whether it be to free speech or education, is of a higher order than capitalism.

Rights provided the soil in which the seeds of capitalism are sown. Every book on capitalism recognizes that laws need to regulate markets and those laws must come from the government, which in turn gets its authority from the people when those people declare certain truths to be self-evident. Those truths are called rights.

Capitalism plays a supporting role. Not a defining role.

Thanks for visiting, and for your comments.

Regarding the word 'liberal':
I'm trying to use the labels 'Leftist' or 'Socialist' instead of the 'L word', which has been mis-applied to modern day Leftists. It is one of the semantic idiocies of our time that the word 'Liberal' has become a pejorative. Which of the two alternatives do you think would be more applicable than the word 'liberal'?

Re: Brown vs. the Board of Education:
I believe that it is a mistake to consider the 'right' to education. When faced with the question of rights, the proper question to ask - and I ask it of you - is "at whose expense"?

Since the "right" to education must come at someone else's expense, it is no longer a "right" but a gift, either voluntary or involuntary. Notice that the other rights, e.g. the right to free speech, do not come at the expense of anyone else - they are individual rights.

The SCOTUS decision notwithstanding, there is no such thing as the "right to eduction".

To your other point, citizens of America also have to live (and therefore eat) to vote - by your argument, shouldn't there also be a 'right to food'? Actually, we should be thankful - if this had been the law of the land, Govt would have been the sole-supplier of food. The quality, price and availability of food would have been terrible. Instead, we have competing grocery stores at most major intersections and a delivery system that efficiently supplies food when needed. Somehow, almost invisibly, suppliers manage to bring exotic items from faraway places to our neighborhood stores.

Barak Obama (and politicians of all stripes) who advocate UHC as a 'right' are 'wrong'. Since healthcare is provided by nurses, doctors, hospital administrators, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies (and others) your 'right' to health care enslaves all those entities.

By your definition, Capitalism plays a non-defining, supporting role. If you meant that in the sense that Capitalism is like plumbing, I wouldn't disagree with you! It is essential, but largely invisible to most. And, you don't have to understand it to benefit from it.

But if you meant that it is somehow un-important, I would strongly disagree. Just like plumbing, try to live without it, and you will know. You may want to refer to the data that was collected during the recently ended, top-secret, 75 year experiment that was conducted in Soviet Russia.

America owes its success to Capitalism - and our successes in the future depends entirely upon the extent to which it is 'allowed' to exist.

"I'm trying to use the labels 'Leftist' or 'Socialist' instead of the 'L word', which has been mis-applied to modern day Leftists. "

My objection was not in using the term Liberal, but in how liberal is characterized. This is no different than use of the term conservative.

It is too bad that "party platform" has fallen out of favor. Years ago the platform actually meant something. Since the platform no longer defines the party we are left with a cast of characters I find objectionable on both sides.

I do not find that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda, Jimmy Carter or John Kerry to name a few on the left define a cohesive set of principles.

Similarly for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Frist, James Dobson or Sean Hannity.

Amongst the crowd in either camp one will find wide variation in charateristics.

I believe the problem you are struggling with is simply one of definition. Rather than struggle with the terms Leftist, Liberal or Socialist I would suggest you simply define Liberal and Conservative in a posting here on your web site, your definitions. Then refer all posters to your definitions when generalizing.

Given the state of current politics I believe your definitions once you find ones you like will be as legitimate as anyone elses.

I would strongly encourage, however, to stick to idea identification and not people identification.

I dare say if you read either the Republican or Democratic platforms today that you would immediately come to realize no living human being comes close to holding the values in either platform. Mostly because both parties have platforms that are widely inconsistent and most people, while being inconsistent, are not that inconsistent.

Let me ask you something about use of either word communist or socialist. If you asked 100 Americans the definition of either term, how many could answer correctly? I would hazard a guess that less than 10% understand what either term really means. Therein lies the problem. I have often pointed out on conservative venues that there is neither a communist nor an atheist in Congress presently. Or a socialist. The fact is that socialism, communism, democracy and all forms of government have things in common and things that are not.

Socialism is not a strong concept in the U.S. All one has to do is look at France or Spain and the vast differences between us and them to understand this.

Take unions for example. Unions and worker representation are huge in France and Spain. Unions are weakening and decline here. Americans, by and large are not interested in them. Yet Unions played a vital role. They helped define work place saftey and establish the 40 hour work week. Every major U.S. newspaper in America use to carry a Labor and a Business section. No more.

What most conservatives label socialism or communism is incorrectly labeled. Americans want a high standard of living. The American dream. They want the house, two cars and various amenities. The biggest tax break going, bar known, is the mortgage write off Americans enjoy for home ownership. That is not a socialist tax break. That is the American dream.

Education is part of the American dream. People want to send their kids to college which mandates that high school education must take place.

Here's where I see the inherent problem with conservative debate. By mislabeling quality of life issues as "socialism" the debate gets tuned out.

Environmentalism is about having clean air, clean water and safe living conditions. It is not socialism.

Truth be told we all want to leave this world a little better place than we found it for our children. We do not want to leave polluted rivers.

I guess the only reason I'm taking the time to post here at all is your hesitation. Conservative dialog is being poorly represented by the people like Hugh Hewitt who are in the spot light. Politics has become too much the sporting event of our people vs. theirs.

We need to get back to the debate on ideas. I believe conservatives have the right ideas about quality of life. I believe those ideas whether it be about abortion or capitalism can be argued in the positive such that vast majorities of people will affirm with them. This is a far cry from the politics of destruction of the bad guys on the other side that is so prevalent today. And I find socialism, communism, atheism, and such are used not to debate but rather simply to mark someone as bad character. Like I said, most Americans do not understand the definitions of communism and socialism. Use them are high risk. I say it is better to put forth the merits of quality of life issues that conservatives care about and let people see the justice and rightness in them rather the waste time pointing out the negative.

"I believe that it is a mistake to consider the 'right' to education. "

Well, then, you are going against the very founders of this country. Jefferson, on his grave stone, says the thing he is the most proud of is his founding of the College of Virginia. I dare say most Americans would not agree with you on this either.

Rights are not fixed. As Jefferson pointed out, every generation has a responsibility to affirm those rights previously generated by their parents and to come up with their own when needed.

In modern times everyone has the right to the public radio airwaves and everyone has the right to drive on the interstate freeways. These are public venues.

A government by the people and for the people then is one where the people, rightly or wrongly, define the rights which are the foundation for the society and country.

This country has chosen the right to bear arms and the right to education. Both are widely debated and probably will be going forward.

I do not take exception to your arguing education should not be a right. I'm simply pointing out you are in a very small minority.

"Since the "right" to education must come at someone else's expense, it is no longer a "right" but a gift, either voluntary or involuntary."

You are simply wrong. Our form of government requires an educated populace. It is not a gift, it is a responsibility and a requirement. No different than a parent must feed and cloth a child.

Unless you can argue that a Democracy can fully function without an educated populace than education is a requirement.

You may be interested in looking at a previous post titled "What kind of FOUR LETTER conservative are you?". Admittedly, it is a provocative title, but it is a response to some of the 'labelling confusion' that seems to afflict many of us.

In that post, I have attempted to categorize the entire political spectrum (not just conservatives) along 4 axes.

Take a look at it, and let me know if it is helpful. You will note that I have identified myself as "ABCB" along the simplified 3-letter version.

I envision a more elaborate system which would allow a continuum of 2 x 13 choices on each axis with A-M = Liberal and N-Z = conservative.

Pollsters and statisticians could devise tests that folks could take on-line. Politicians could be 'tested' similarly, but their voting records could also be calibrated - it would be interesting to see how well their 'intentions' calibrate against their actual records!

You stated:
"Well, then, you are going against the very founders of this country. Jefferson, on his grave stone, says the thing he is the most proud of is his founding of the College of Virginia. I dare say most Americans would not agree with you on this either."

My response:
Jefferson was most proud of his founding of the College of Virginia - but that doesn't mean that it is a right!

You and I (and quite possibly a majority of Americans) think of education being one of the most important determinants of the future of the country - but that doesn't make it a right!

I think that you have interchanged 'rights' with 'values' - an honest mistake, but one that should be examined.

A 'value' is that which we seek to gain or retain. To those who value it, Education is a 'value'. Education has to be acquired, at some cost.

A 'right' is a claim that cannot be taken away. Education cannot be 'claimed' without the enslavement of its providers. Similarly, neither affluence, food, shelter, transportation and medical care are rights.

You may apply the "at whose expense" test on all these, and you will find that they fail.

However, the same test, when applied to "the right to free speech" passes!

I hope that the above theory is helpful in understanding that we are supporting (not contradicting) Jeffersonian values?

Now for some pragmatism:
Since Education is a value (we both agree on this), we must ensure that American kids have the best possible education system.

You and I may differ in our approach to this ..

My position (also held by most other proponents of the free-market): Govt should get out of education and leave it to the free market. This will improve quality, while holding costs in line with market conditions.

driveby is my handle because I do not intend to tarry here ere long.

I believe that conservatives are falling increasingly behind in managing dialog in this country and Liberals are running amok. Conservatives need to do better.

I'd like to encourage you to continue to put your shoulder against the wheel and press mightly to mill out the grist of ideas and ignore the politics of destruction.

Alas, when Ronald Reagan died so did civility within the conservative ranks. Reagan zenithed at the same time we find Rush Limbaugh rising. I believe that the negativatity in Right Wing media meant short term election gains at the expense of long term objectives. The chickens are now coming home to roost. Six years from 2000-2006 is short indeed and Republicans got almost nothing done. For example, the main article on Town Hall today is nothing but a Jimmy Carter bash festival, which does nothing to promote the conservative cause. That Dinesh D'Souza article is completely counter-productive to the benefit of this country.

"I think that you have interchanged 'rights' with 'values' - an honest mistake, but one that should be examined. A 'value' is that which we seek to gain or retain. To those who value it, Education is a 'value'. Education has to be acquired, at some cost."

Sorry, but I cannot even remotely agree with this assessment. Rights are assumptions, expressed arbitrary desires of the people. We hold these truths to be self evident, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We all seek to gain or retain life, liberty and the pursuit of happines and these are all rights enjoyed by Americans.

This is a curious discussion given today marks the 270th aniversery of the birth of Thomas Paine. Paine explains where rights come from in "The Rights of Man."

"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead?"
--Thomas Paine

"A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.

From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.

The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.

From these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow:
First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.
Secondly, That civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose of every one.
Thirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself."
--Thomas Paine

No man is an island. Every person then subscribes a certain amount of personal liberty and capital (taxes) so as to benefit from the benefits only a common society of people working together can benefact. Public education is one of these. As Paine states, "defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose of every one." he's basically saying what one person cannot realize all rights alone and is defective in realizing certain rights, but when people are collected in effort these rights can become competent to the Purpose of every one. Collected here is not communism. Paine is speaking to the fact that a lawyer is not a plumber. A doctor is not a house builder. You personally cannot build the interstate freeways but we the society can and then decide to do so.

Rights then are assumptions. Starting points. Rights are the foundation upon which societies and governments are erected. Your right to use the public airwaves didn't exist back in 1776 because technology didn't exist back then. It does now because of the years of success in this country of innovation and inventing.

Free markets are only "free" when taken within the framework of a responsible government. The opposite of free markets is not socialism, but controlled markets. Our government is *only* to provide a framework of common general welfare, least common denominator if you will, of what everyone wants from pooled resources. The free market then allows people to fill out the details and choices not provided by the framework of government. Conservatives argue for a smaller framework than liberals. But all conservatives recognize the same inherent reasons for the need for government. We are talking degree, not kind. Everyone wants to city to come and pick up garbage and expects tap water.

The correct converstation of conservative vs. liberal debate then is to state what rights are desired. For example, why K-12 education? In the modern world, perhaps every citizen should be required to attend college? You will get absolutely nowhere debating whether education is a right because legally rights are granted by the people out of thin air. They are arbitrary. We amend the constitution and write laws accordingly. They exist and then they don't. The majority of Americans want public education as a right and therefore it is.

There was an interesting article today in the San Francisco Chronicle about a new law being introduced banning the spanking of children. Do children now have the right not to be spanked? The interesting article posited that regardless if children have the right not to be spanked, sending the parents to jail is not the solution if one believes in this new right.

Ultimately one can look at the expense of incarceration as "value" from your point of view. Every prisoner costs more per year to jail then we spend per year on a student for education. Where do these prisoners get the "right" to have all this money spent on them? Why not just use prisoners as slave labor so as to be "value" nutural?

Ultimately every "right" has a cost because every "right" has laws associated with it and law enforcement is hugely expensive.

Freedom is always an ever changing balance between control, law, and unfettered access. That balance will always be debated.

The value you speak of is not relevant. For example, during a time of war a country will draft its people to fight and die in a war. Nothing is more valuable to you than your life. Yet society dictates that the needs of the many, their rights, outweigh the needs of the few or the one and therefore makes the decision it does.

I would encourage you to read Thomas Paine. Paine was a mirror and not an originator. Meaning Paine synthesized the ideas of the time and wrote them for average consumption. Paine reflects the thinking of his time. Rights are not constrained by value. You have the right to marry, even though marriage has immediate costs to society in some ways with all the tax breaks and yet has long lasting benefits that eventually reward society manifold the investment. Same argument applies with education.

Cost only comes into factoring the realities of the implementation. Can our society now afford to mandate college? Should we only mandate K-7 and make 8-12 optional to save money? These are fair debates. If you want to revoke education as a right then you need to democratically challenge society to revoke it. Good luck with that. Like I said, the vast majority of Americans want education for their kids.

Thanks for making this an interesting debate!

Also, I appreciate the Thomas Paine references - they are appropriate and relevant to this discussion.

BTW, I agree with you that technological advancement and social changes will require us to continuously evaluate our rights and values. So, I don't favor a 'status-quo' approach, as you have implied.

But, these 'updates' should be applied carefully and consistently.

For example, the right to free speech MUST be translated to include our freedom to express ourselves via Radio, TV and Internet. Note, however, that the statists took a bite out of this 'right' by claiming that the airways are publicly owned - therefore, they could impose obscenities such as the Equal Time rule.

Note that the traditional delivery of newspapers is made by using public highways - so, the statists could be justified in applying an Equal Time rule to privately owned newspapers!

In your post, there are some excellent points derived from Thomas Paine's writings. However, I believe that your confusion between 'value' and 'rights' persists.

I do not want to 'revoke' education as a right - it has never been a right, and should never become a right. (Note: if it was a right, there would be no cost associated with education. And, despite the rhetoric of 'free public education' we are all paying for it now via taxes).

Education is (and has always been) a VALUE in America. There has always been a considerable cost to attaining this value, a cost that parents are always prepared to pay.

Just for clarification.

1.) In 1958? Brown vs. the Board, the Supreme Court ruled that education is a right.

2.) In 1964? Lovings vs. Virginia , the Supreme Court ruled marriage is a right.

The case that you have often cited, "Brown vs the Board" was indeed a landmark case, but it did not state that education is a right. There are many myths surrounding that case.

Here's what the case DID accomplish:

* it dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities.

* By declaring that the discriminatory nature of racial segregation ... "violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws," Brown v. Board of Education laid the foundation for shaping future national and international policies regarding human rights.

* It reaffirmed the sovereign power of the people of the United States in the protection of their natural rights from arbitrary limits and restrictions imposed by state and local governments. These rights are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

BTW, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I must confess that I am not an expert in constitutional law. I found the above points after a quick Google search led me to:
http://brownvboard.org/summary/
from which I 'borrowed' freely!

I suggest that you visit that site (and others) and re-calibrate your understanding of this case as I did. Otherwise, you run the risk of citing erroneously from this case in a debate with a 'real' constitutional scholar, who will rip your argument to shreds.

Nowhere in this case was the "right to Education" mentioned.

The only 'right' that is mentioned is the 'right of equal protection'. And that IS a right that passes the "at whose expense?" test!

Note: given the title of your post, I suspect that it may be your final post on the subject. I wish you well, and have enjoyed the even toned repartee, specially since so many TH debates seem to sink into acrimony.

My suggestions (above) to research a case thoroughly before citing it are offered with good intentions and without malice.

Just for further thought.

In 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a right. Unlike the proclamation that education and marriage are both rights, the Supreme Court decision that abortion is a right has been seriously contested by conservatives.

The argument is best paraphrased by Benjamin Franklin, "Your rights end where mine begin."

In the case of abortion the best way to frame the argument is to say that the mother's right to self determination ends when the baby is concieved. From there on the baby's right to life trumps the mother's natural right to have absolute control about decisions regarding her body health.

The interesting thing about the new spanking laws is that one right is pitted against another for the same individual. A baby has the right to be with its natural parents. The new law states that a baby has a right not to be spanked. The argument in the Chronicle was not that spanking was effective as a means of discipline but that the right to be with the parent trumps the right not to be spanked.

The point here being is that while conservatives may challenge school integration mandated by Brown vs. the Board, conservatives are not challenging the decision that education is a right.

Further, conservatives are not challenging the Lovings case where the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a right.

Conservatives challenge in a big way that abortion is a right.

The point being that you are going to be sorely alone outstanding in a field if you mount a campaign to overturn Brown on the basis that education should no longer be considered a right.

The problem with the abortion debate is that conservatives are not waging it correctly.

Conservatives have the right tools, they are just not using them correctly. Until Roe v. Wade, abortion was a State's issue. Conservatives believe in general in State's rights. What conservatives today are fighting for is both a Federal Amendment making abortion illegal and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The first is foolhardy. Overturning Roe is the correct battle.

I think if one is going to consider cost of rights, your best bet is to start arguing against universal health care. Democrats are going get Universal Healthcare as a right passed through Congress. One can much easier argue that the expense of such a thing would impinge in the "quality of life" rights people enjoy by keeping their money. Taxes are a rights battlefield. Too much taxation takes away people's basic right to pursuing happiness in the free market arena.

I can tell you this. Ross Perot ran on Universal Healthcare as a right. He pointed to Canada's model. He said Medicare and Medicaid cost this country more per capita every year than Canada's universal healthcare. Ross Perot was first and foremost a businessman. He always framed everything in terms of cost. Thus he was against NAFTA because he felt it would cost this country too much. Looking at immigration today I would say he is right on that account.

Here is an interesting question for you to debate. Should access to the Internet be a right of public? After all, much of the Internet is subsidized by the Federal Government. In fact, before the WWW, it was the Federal Government. There is a program being funded in Congress right now called "a laptop for every child." It is in the development stages.

Effectively ISP's are information highway "toll booths" and unless one is going to school there is no "free access" for one to excercise the right to the Internet, a toll has to be paid.

The right to the Internet will be argued along the same lines as the Interstate Highway. By having public access, the economy will boom. Voters can then be required to vote via the Internet etc.

Ultimately I think the Democrats will carry the day with making limited Universal Healthcare as a right in addition to making limited Internet access as a right. And I think most Americans will go along with both, conservatives too, as long as the *limitations* are practial.

That's where conservatives play the important role. For Conservatives to put a stake in the ground saying no form of healthcare is a right is a losing battle. Once healthcare does become a right then conservatives are going to look like curmudgeons. I actually believe that mandatory but properly limited public access to the Internet will grow the economy. But I think that high speed and other things need to remain the realm open markets.

Conservatives are not doing themselves any favors by being *rights* deniers in the public world. After all it was Eisenhower who promoted our Federal Highway system we all have the right to access and that costs billions of dollars each year. The largest appropriations bill in history was the recent Federal Highway bill.

I think conservatives need to keep up with the times when it comes to rights and that ultimately conservatives can be more trusted than Democrats in the public's view because Democrats always want too much of the good thing and conservatives supply the voice of reason.

And you are the voice of reason when it comes to cost. The people are the source of rights. If the people want some form of limited Universal Healthcare, it does no good as a minority to stand against the tide. Better to provide the value argument as to the best *limits* of those rights. I would recommend you use to the voice of reason to properly apply rights as opposed to denying them.

Well, perhaps rather than trying to look at education from a lawyer perspective, you can look at education from a real world perspective.

Try and keep your kid out of school in any city, any state in the Union. Just try it.

Every state in the Union will remove a kid from the custody of any parent who actively denys a kid schooling and put that kid in foster care.

Your kid can be taken away from you and put into foster care if you deny a child education because education is a right.

and comments. "Voluntary" is the key word.

drivebyposting,

You quoted Benjamin Franklin, "Your rights end where mine begin."

Actually, that is a succintly phrased version of the "at whose expense?" test for rights.

Re: Education as a right:
Yes, there are laws that state that you can go to jail if you keep a kid out of school. But that doesn't make education a right!

You can also go to jail for perjury. But that doesn't mean that honesty is a fundamental right!

Not everything that is governed by laws pertains to rights. So, the example (kids, school, jail) is not relevant to whether education is a right.

BTW, the 'values vs. rights' discussion is more important than the semantic differences implied.

That is because many Leftists BEGIN with a false premise, e.g. 'education (or health care) is a right'. Armed with that erroneous position, they set national policy and create Govt funded bureaucracies to administer those flawed policies.

Also, I am not opposed to the CONTENT of the ruling in Brown v. Board. If I was, then I would have to be FOR racial segregation - which I am decidedly AGAINST!

There are those who suggest that it was a mistake to have education policy decided in the courts. There are also many writers who have shown the unintended consequences of this ruling.

That said, I am vehemently opposed to public funding of education; so, in my view there shouldn't be an entity such as the Board of Education. I oppose it on moral grounds (the enslavement argument) as well on pragmatic grounds (it doesn't work).

Education, like most other things that have value, is a scarce commodity. Central planning, the panacea of Statists, has been the worst solution to just about every problem. So, by choosing a 'central planning' solution to education, we are giving tacit approval to the placement of education at a very low priority.

Q) How much importance do I give education?
A) So much that I want to see it done well - and therefore seek to privatize it.

FYI, I have two kids, so I take this topic very seriously.

In my previous post, I misspelled the word "succinctly".

I apologize for making such a mistake while posting on the topic of 'education'.