Jillian: Thank you for having the fortitude to read my dissertation-posts.
Yes, I believe that men and women have some fundamental, but subtle, differences in the way they think, the things that motivate them, and so on.
How much, in any given society, these are due to nature, and how much to nurture, is one of the most interesting questions of our time, given that the purely social constraints on women are rapidly dissolving: an inadvertent experiment in weakening one of two otherwise-intangled factors.
I think you're correct. But I also think the dissolution of social restraints on women is a good thing. And but for the "radical feminists" of the '60's and on, women would still be forced to live lives that may not have been of their choosing. I think, ideally, feminism means having choices. I very much admire the women who stay home with their children. On the other hand, I was always taught that children grow up. They leave to live their own lives. So, ultimately, it's our responsibility to try to balance parenthood and whatever else it is that leaves us fulfilled.
And I am sure you are right about the differences between liberals and conservatives, with regard to the unspoken world-view each group has.
A study of human history, especially that of the last five hundred years, provides unlimited material to support the views of both sides.
Agreed, once again. I think we should always strive, though, to move forward and try to make the world a better place than we found it. Interestingly, I went to a Bar Mitzvah on Saturday night. The Torah passage the Bar Mitzvah boy read was about Noah and the flood. Afterwards, the Rabbi gave a bit of a sermon on it. What he said resonated for me. He asked, "If Noah saved the world, why isn't he one of our 'Jewish heroes'? Why don't we say 'G-d of Abraham, G-d of Isaac, G-d of Noah' in our prayers?" His answer was that it was because although Noah was righteous, he saved only his own skin and that of his family... he didn't show righteous indignation to G-d and fight against the rest of humanity being destroyed, as Moses did when G-d said he would destroy the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf. I think that, ultimately, is the difference between an extreme (and I mean close to anarchist) libertarian and a 'bleeding heart' liberal. The difference is that of "I'm saving myself, just don't get in the way" and "we need to save the world". Somewhere in between on a continuum, is where most of us lie.
It's ironic that with respect to Iraq, the two groups have exchanged places: conservatives (at least some of them) optimistically believing that all hearts yearn for freedom, etc, liberals believing that Iraqis are incorrigibly committed to living in a world where family and tribe and brute force should trump the rule of law.
I think it's more that we think they don't want us there. They want safety and stability, but like anyone else, they don't want to be occupied. I think it also has to do with what we see as nefarious motivation for the commencement of the entire nightmare.
As for the alleged hedonism at the heart of liberal philosophy ... yes, I exaggerate. This was the view of the Sixties generation (ask me how I know), and I believe that they brought it, subconsciously, into the liberal movement, insofar as one can speak of a liberal movement. There it blended well with the old-fashioned liberal tendency to look to the state for remedies to social problems, which implies a diminished role for personal resonsibility.
Again, I don't think that liberals are hedonistic any more than 'conservatives'. I think we think we don't belong butting into the business of others. Part of this is that we all think we're correct. But that doesn't necessarily mean we are. And your conservative view, since you're clearly a thinking and articulate and well-reasoned conservative, is no more or less likely of being correct than my (also thinking and articulate and well-reasoned) social liberalism (though I think I'm moderate where it's called for). Therefore, that being the case, why should one presume to impose their particular view on others. If one wants to belong to a church that doesn't accept gays, for example, that is their choice... campaigning against others' accepting them... well, that's where the line gets crossed. I hope I'm being clear.. .I know there are a lot of words here.
I also think conservatives see the world as more Hobbesian.. government exists for security because people are dangerous and cruel and life is nasty, brutish and short... etc. People who like a bit more from their government see government as a more Lockeian (sp?) enterprise. So, again, it has to do with the respectively pessimistic and optimistic world views of both groups.
But I know there are all kinds of liberals, and some have a fairly well work-out theory of community, and the responsibilities of individuals within it, for example. (But I notice that on this Board, nuances and acknowlegement of exceptions to the rule are not appreciated. So I shall stick to unfair, sweeping generalizations.)
Well, I, for one, really hate the generalizations, and I think I rise above them on most occassions, but if you must...
And many conservatives would instinctively agree with your libertarian social philosophy: An it hurt no one, do what thou wilt. The arguments begin over where social harm, perhaps initially very subtle in effect, can result from what are logically individual choices.
And who decides what is "social harm" and what changes benefit society? You? Me? Some "leader"?
Thus the only argument I can see against legalizing drugs -- which I support -- is the one that says that it will, in fact, result in widespread misery as people find it much easier to acquire and use and then ab-use them -- and you can be sure the capitalist market will bring drugs to them at very low prices and packaged most attractively.
But they're already being used. Perhaps sometimes we should look at what's pragmatic... The "war on drugs" has filled our prisons and cost us billions... with little to no result. So, if someone's to make a profit, I'd prefer it being government, which can maybe use the tax money to do good, than drug lords and street gangs.
The libertarian focusses on the individual, in the privacy of her own home, making a rational choice as to how and to what extent to alter her consciousness by chemical means for a few hours. The non-libertarian looks at the big picture and the effect on society as a whole. (My own guess is that it can't get much worse, and that legalization would have such enormous good effects in other fields -- destroying the financial base of drug gangs and removing a powerful source of judicial and police corruption -- that it is worth taking the risk.
See above... we're agreed. But I think given that the libertarian view is also, govern your own behavior, this view suits both the libertarian and 'liberal' mindset. It is only the people who feel they have to be everyone else's moral compass who would be troubled.
