FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:49 am
Well we aren't going to agree on any of that because you two are fundamentally illiberal.
We're classical Liberals. We believe in individual rights and responsibilities. We believe in voluntary societies, local solutions, and charity. (At least, I certainly do, but I can't speak for Henry on that.) Not big government.
It's part of any liberal creed to maximise the space for personal conscience and give people space to live their lives.
A secondary corollary is that we don't subscribe to myths of human perfectibility,
so we aren't going to buy into the idea that...a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people.
This would mean you're for personal conscience and space to live life, but against self-sufficiency? That contradicts itself. If you don't believe people deserve a chance to be self-sufficient, why would you give them more space, or trust their personal conscience?
You've forgotten the inescapable flip-side of personal freedom
: personal responsibility
. If you believe people deserve to be given rights and opportunities, then you also have to believe they are capable of taking them, and using them in a way which is good for them and good for society. And you have to be willing not simply to regard them as responsible for their successes, but responsible for their failings, as well.
The real world is where we make policy choices,
If "policy choices" are your answer to local problems, then you're a big government advocate, and not a classical Liberal. Big government destroys both personal responsibility and personal freedoms, in the name of mass-management.
If you are intent on analysing poverty as a moral failing
Well, shouldn't you be, if it is?
Obviously it often is. Far more often, in fact, than the mere fact of having less money. More money is possible to make, if one gets life in order. Again, all the studies prove that all you've got to do is finish high school, not misbehave reproductively or financially, and get a job. Problem solved.
And on the contrary, are you suggesting that moral failings, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, broken homes and/or financial mismanagement are NOT contributors to poverty? If you are saying that, then you have not single bit of data to support such a claim, and a multitude of credible studies that contradict you.
The problem here is that Leftist ideology always gets put ahead of facts; even if the facts are totally clear, as in this case. So Leftist ideology simply ignores them, and continues on its merry way.