liberalism

A friend asked me to defend liberalism, and I got up on my soapbox. I reproduce it here:

Liberal is tough - it's like that whole 'turn the other cheek' thing (I would argue they are very closely related). I believe in certain absolutes - good and evil, for example. I think helping other people is good, absolutely (knowing -how- to help people can be tough, but that's a different question). Generally speaking conservatives believes people help themselves. I don't disagree that we have a responsibility to care for ourselves, but I do believe that most people who are poor, uneducated, etc. are not that way because they are lazy or stupid, but because they didn't have the opportunities necessary to pull themselves up. I also believe, no matter how lazy or stupid you might be, that leaving you to sleep under a bridge and wade through garbage for food is immoral. I am (relatively) rich, you are poor. Am I impoverished if I give you a small portion of what I have so you can have enough to survive? No. Even a tax higher than any that currently exists would leave me well enough off to be comfortable. Obviously even better than treating the symptom, however, is treating the cause - education can save us so much money in the long run.

That's all - thought I would share.

we have decided that you are absolutely right. I would have to say that this encapsulates (is that a word - or correctly spelled?) what I believe as well. I think that one of the biggest changes in society these days has been a steady shift to a culture that believes in 'me and got mine.' Volunteerism and giving to the poor is something done at holidays, and is becoming an increasingly liberal value. We are having the toughest time getting donations for things like tissues and pencils for the school year. Parents in the wealthier areas of San Diego have been making donations with the stipulation that it only goes to their own school. How frustrating that we no longer deem it important to care for all of our own.

But I think this addresses nicely one of the reasons I believe in a political solution, as opposed to a personal one. The tragedy of the commons is real. Even were it not the case that people would feel it unfair if only they were contributing, it would still be more efficient to have someone whose job it was to figure out the best way to use the resources in question. Thus we give the job to the state, which can, in theory, be neutral (or at least more neutral than the parents of a child in district X). Equally, I don't think we should ask our imaginary parent to be neutral. But I do think we should all recognize that neutrality can be a good thing in questions of this nature.