Loading ...« Awww, you shouldn’t have! | Home | Conservativism vs. Socialism: A question of human nature »
A discussion with mom….
By sage of monticello | August 1, 2007
I was talking to my mother today about the duty, in my view, of conservatives and Republicans to give to charity. If we don’t advocate a government solution to the problems charities serve, then we must bear that burden ourselves. Societal needs, when not bore by the community must be borne by its citizens individually.
We talked about how when she is taxed its not the amount of money the government takes away that makes her the most upset, but rather that she is coercively forced to support things she doesn’t choose and that the programs she is forced to support are not the most effective means to solve the problems the government programs seek to solve.
To my mother, the difference between being taxed to support social welfare programs and giving to charity is about choice, and by extension, accountability.
My mother likes to give to charities she holds dear and ones she knows she can hold accountable. To illustrate my mother’s thinking, which is more accountable, a local church food back or the Department of Social Services? My mom noted that several of her favorite charities have extraordinarily low administrative costs, stating that most of the charities which she supports have administrative costs under five percent. I doubt government bureaucracy can match that efficiency.
I then pointed out that if liberals believe so strongly in the effectiveness of government in solving society’s problems then there was nothing within one’s freedom choice to prevent liberals from donating to government. “But who would do that” I quipped.
It’s the choice conservatives want – not necessarily the money – and if everyone was given an opportunity to choose a charitable cause I would guess that liberals certainly would not choose the Department of Social Services over the local church food bank.
At this time, my mom made an excellent point. She said,
You know, this is just like the chicken hawk argument. Liberals ridicule you [College Republicans] for not want supporting Iraq (conservative-implemented public policies) by joining the army, but then, if given the choice most liberals likely wouldn’t support social welfare programs (liberal-implemented public policies) if not forced to do so. If given the choice, I bet most liberals would not give to the government. Isn’t that just like the chicken hawk argument, only reversed and applied to those who originally used it as a political weapon?
Right on mom! It is the chicken hawk argument in reverse. And it turns on a fairly reasonable assumption that if liberals were given a choice they would choose not to support social welfare policies – like most other Americans.
So, let’s get this straight. Conservatives are hypocrites for not supporting conservative policies (even though I have pointed out the illogic of this argument), but liberals I suppose are not hypocrites should they would choose not to support social welfare policies through charitable donations.
Topics: Liberals, conservativism, socialism, liberalism, political hypocrisy, charity |
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 am
I think what everyone, on both sides, really wants is an efficient, effective government that takes care of its people. As you mentioned, people object to being taxed for social services primarily because the government systems are cumbersome and not terribly well run. But I don’t think anyone feels that the answer is to lay the burden on little old ladies who volunteer their time to make sure people are fed and clothed. I think the only way party politics enters into the equation is that most conservatives believe that the community will step up to support its own citizens, and liberals believe we can’t rely on that happening and should require our own government to support the country’s most vulnerable.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
Why are you writing about talking with your mother? This blog is catering to college students not grades-choolers, right?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 am
This blog does cater to College Republicans (to be specific) and if I was discussing my latest coloring book purchase with my mom I could see your point.
However, I was talking about complex philosophical issues with my mom and wanted to mention a good point she made - a point that I had not yet thought through.
The fact that my mom was inolved is coincidental to the good point she made regarding the chicken hawk argument. My purpose was not to prove to my readership that I talk with my mom but to expose the hypocrisy of the left when they unfairly, illogically, and hypocritically brand us as cowards by applying the chicken hawk argument to the Iraq war policy.
That is why I was writing about talking with my mom. As if talking to one’s mom is only something a childish grade-schooler would do…
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Did mom send brownies?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
yeah….special brownies….