Conservatives or people with limited government philosophical beliefs have a much harder task explaining their reasoning in a soundbite world.
If you vote against any social service, you are a monster; you want children to starve extra.
A lot of individuals benefit from things I do not support, but my opposition to those policies does not in any way have anything to do with my will toward the people who benefit or suffer.
Being liberal is much easier; you get to act on the ends and justify the means; whatever you conclude to be good is right; the outcome is what matters, not the process. In some cases, the outcome doesn't even matter; only the noble intent matters.
Like me, people who believe in limited government act upon moral, philosophical reasoning, our perceived "right and wrong." That means we find ourselves opposing things we might benefit from out of consistency for our principles, not mal intent for others.
We may disagree, but I don't believe most of us are evil people trying to destroy America or want people to suffer.
I admire those on the left for wanting to help those who suffer, as I admire those on the right who believe in personal responsibility and think what's best is not enabling people but protecting individual liberty.
Let's not get into the weeds of a policy discussion. Opposing or supporting a policy does not reflect someone's character, the reasoning behind their support or opposition is what matters.
Regardless of the idiot talking heads and current elected officials, millions of caring, compassionate people philosophically disagree with using the government to care for individuals.
My desire is not to fight or argue with people; I hope to help others come to an understanding that people we disagree with, sometimes passionately so, aren't necessarily stupid, heartless, evil people; they just have a different worldview, a different belief in what the role of government is.
None of us want high crime, drug addiction, poverty, poor education, disconnected communities, polluted air or drinking water, exedra.
It's okay that we disagree, but we can still come together to build our communities unless we divide ourselves and view each other as the enemy; then, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I respect people who want to help others and use the government as a tool to assist. I understand the arguments; I know that people need their basic needs met before they can worry about the higher steps of Maslow's social pyramid.
But as a recovering alcoholic, I have learned you can't help people who don't want help. I know when people are willing to put forth an honest effort, someone will always be willing to reach out and help them.
I have been taught to be willing to meet people halfway; many people need help, but fewer are prepared to accept it and use it to get out of their situation.
I have left my job in the middle of the day and met people in the middle of the night who were struggling and needed help; I will do almost anything for somebody in need that shows a real desire to get help and change their situation. But I no longer try to help people who need help but aren't willing to help themselves or even change when given the opportunity. There are too many people to help that both need it and want it, to spend resources on those that need it and will not benefit from it.
I have great compassion for those who need help but can't change, and we have to try to help their kids, but enabling people is not the answer.
That is where we differ, I want to help people get out of poverty, and I believe government only enables people to survive in poverty; it does not build strong communities and character.
We are good people with many different philosophies and ideas about the social order and the role of government; we just don't understand each other. We have not walked in one another's shoes or seen through the other's eyes.
If you vote against any social service, you are a monster; you want children to starve extra.
A lot of individuals benefit from things I do not support, but my opposition to those policies does not in any way have anything to do with my will toward the people who benefit or suffer.
Being liberal is much easier; you get to act on the ends and justify the means; whatever you conclude to be good is right; the outcome is what matters, not the process. In some cases, the outcome doesn't even matter; only the noble intent matters.
Like me, people who believe in limited government act upon moral, philosophical reasoning, our perceived "right and wrong." That means we find ourselves opposing things we might benefit from out of consistency for our principles, not mal intent for others.
We may disagree, but I don't believe most of us are evil people trying to destroy America or want people to suffer.
I admire those on the left for wanting to help those who suffer, as I admire those on the right who believe in personal responsibility and think what's best is not enabling people but protecting individual liberty.
Let's not get into the weeds of a policy discussion. Opposing or supporting a policy does not reflect someone's character, the reasoning behind their support or opposition is what matters.
Regardless of the idiot talking heads and current elected officials, millions of caring, compassionate people philosophically disagree with using the government to care for individuals.
My desire is not to fight or argue with people; I hope to help others come to an understanding that people we disagree with, sometimes passionately so, aren't necessarily stupid, heartless, evil people; they just have a different worldview, a different belief in what the role of government is.
None of us want high crime, drug addiction, poverty, poor education, disconnected communities, polluted air or drinking water, exedra.
It's okay that we disagree, but we can still come together to build our communities unless we divide ourselves and view each other as the enemy; then, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I respect people who want to help others and use the government as a tool to assist. I understand the arguments; I know that people need their basic needs met before they can worry about the higher steps of Maslow's social pyramid.
But as a recovering alcoholic, I have learned you can't help people who don't want help. I know when people are willing to put forth an honest effort, someone will always be willing to reach out and help them.
I have been taught to be willing to meet people halfway; many people need help, but fewer are prepared to accept it and use it to get out of their situation.
I have left my job in the middle of the day and met people in the middle of the night who were struggling and needed help; I will do almost anything for somebody in need that shows a real desire to get help and change their situation. But I no longer try to help people who need help but aren't willing to help themselves or even change when given the opportunity. There are too many people to help that both need it and want it, to spend resources on those that need it and will not benefit from it.
I have great compassion for those who need help but can't change, and we have to try to help their kids, but enabling people is not the answer.
That is where we differ, I want to help people get out of poverty, and I believe government only enables people to survive in poverty; it does not build strong communities and character.
We are good people with many different philosophies and ideas about the social order and the role of government; we just don't understand each other. We have not walked in one another's shoes or seen through the other's eyes.
Comments
Post a Comment