New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Many of the debates between liberals and conservatives on this board and across the nation seem to revolve around the topics of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic. However, it seems to me that none of these terms are very well-defined in most of these debates. They are just vague notions that most people take for granted.

Here are the dictionary definitions:

self-reliance: reliance on one's own abilities, decisions, etc.

self-sufficiency: able to maintain oneself or itself without outside aid : capable of providing for one's own needs

work ethic: a belief in the moral benefit and importance of work and its inherent ability to strengthen character

From listening to conservatives on PJ (and across the nation), it is my impression that conservatives place very high value on the "virtues" of self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and a strong work ethic. They see those virtues as the values of the founding fathers and embedded in the Constitution. They also seem to believe that government necessarily undermines self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic. As someone who is a progressive, I can say that I also think that self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and a strong work ethic are essential virtues. At the same time, I see "self-reliance" as tempered by interdependence (because I - though I can do a lot for myself - I can't do everything). In this respect. both community and government are important. (Even someone as conservative as DefeatObama conceded that some level of government was needed to maintain a civil society). However, progressives have more confidence in the ability of a democratic government. In particular, where conservatives see government undermining self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic, progressives see government strengthening both the community as a whole and individual self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and the work ethic.

I know which perspective makes more sense to me. I am sure that President Obama sees things the way that I do. I am sure that the bulk of PJ progressives see things the same way as well. At the same time, there is ample evidence on PJ that conservatives see things quite differently and gravitate (whether by choice or necessity) to Romney.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
Self reliance, self sufficiency and work ethic...

Who, in their right mind, would argue against any of those concepts? Taking the cynical view, I would argue that Republican word-smiths have recommended pounding home these themes as a distraction from the fact that American corporations have, for decades now, been shuttering manufacturing facilities in the United States and moving these jobs to low wage nations that feature little in the way of worker safety and environmental regulations.

As with the railing against the evils of organized labor, this is an attempt to distract the working class in America from what is actually happening to their job opportunities so as to place the blame instead on the working class people themselves. the trick, of course, is to peddle this message in a manner that subliminally says; It's not you who are to blame -- it is your shiftless, no account neighbors.

Divide & Conquer... Hardly a new idea -- but, unfortunately, still very effective.
 

trapdoor

Governor
IMP: I think you've nailed down fairly effectively the liberal view of how government intervention impacts individuals -- that they are helped more than they are hurt by a system that reallocates wealth so as to reduce the impact of poverty.

And I could agree if I had not seen multiple examples of intergenerational welfare -- where families positions are not only not improved by the receipt of government alms, but are seemingly trapped into a cycle of continuing receipt of such alms.

This is setting aside that we are already a country in which only half working population pays federal income tax, the primary source of revenue for these activities, and even with expanded levels of taxation our government will have to borrow money to retain such a system of alms.

The great myth propagated by liberals about conservatives is that conservatives lack charity and have no sense of community. Both are utterly wrong -- just for example most surveys show that conservatives are far more likely to donate to charities than liberals. Conservatives have a different view of "community." The community is not the entire nation, and probably not the entire state -- but the people across the street and the family down the road that the local church adopts at Christmas time (and provides a food pantry to service throughout the year).

Providing a nationwide system of alms distribution, that lasts in perpetuity for some families, may make perfect sense to you -- it makes no sense at all to me. How do you break the cycle of poverty when you're giving people an incentive?
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
trap,

Thanks for responding to the question in the spirit that it was asked.

I do have three questions for you. Is it fair to say that, for example, the Catholic Church has "institutionalized" alms-giving. Is it fair to say that the institutionalized charitable activities of the Church (or other non-profits) perpetuates the cycle of poverty? Why or why not? Would there be other institutions that might help break the cycle of poverty? For example, would you favor seeing a system like the English Poor Laws reinstituted? (Dickens did a vivid job of illustrating some of the effects of the Poor Laws.)

English Poor Laws

In particular, did the Poor Laws end the cycle of poverty or redistribute income?

Finally, do you think that it is really possible to "eradicate poverty" or end the cycle of poverty without "redistributing income" to some extent? Explain.

I hope that some other folks (from both perspectives) will respond in that spirit as well.

IMP: I think you've nailed down fairly effectively the liberal view of how government intervention impacts individuals -- that they are helped more than they are hurt by a system that reallocates wealth so as to reduce the impact of poverty.

And I could agree if I had not seen multiple examples of intergenerational welfare -- where families positions are not only not improved by the receipt of government alms, but are seemingly trapped into a cycle of continuing receipt of such alms.

This is setting aside that we are already a country in which only half working population pays federal income tax, the primary source of revenue for these activities, and even with expanded levels of taxation our government will have to borrow money to retain such a system of alms.

The great myth propagated by liberals about conservatives is that conservatives lack charity and have no sense of community. Both are utterly wrong -- just for example most surveys show that conservatives are far more likely to donate to charities than liberals. Conservatives have a different view of "community." The community is not the entire nation, and probably not the entire state -- but the people across the street and the family down the road that the local church adopts at Christmas time (and provides a food pantry to service throughout the year).

Providing a nationwide system of alms distribution, that lasts in perpetuity for some families, may make perfect sense to you -- it makes no sense at all to me. How do you break the cycle of poverty when you're giving people an incentive?
 

trapdoor

Governor
trap,

Thanks for responding to the question in the spirit that it was asked.
I do have three questions for you. Is it fair to say that, for example, the Catholic Church has "institutionalized" alms-giving.
Yes.

Is it fair to say that the institutionalized charitable activities of the Church (or other non-profits) perpetuates the cycle of poverty? Why or why not?
No, because of scope, and scale -- and because of the way it is distributed. For many years, in this country, we simply incentivized having another child in order to have a larger monthly check.

Would there be other institutions that might help break the cycle of poverty?
More jobs training -- and perhaps the equivalent of a return of the CCC, where people worked to get a paycheck, not at great jobs, but still working and acquiring the sort of on-the-job skills that helped them when they left the government workforce (but I think this would require a constitutional amendment as I think the original CCC was unconstitutional).


For example, would you favor seeing a system like the English Poor Laws reinstituted? (Dickens did a vivid job of illustrating some of the effects of the Poor Laws.)
Obviously not. In fact, I'm somewhat offended that you raise the question as it appears to me to be simply a backdoor attempt to say that all conservatives are cruel and have no sense of community.
Finally, do you think that it is really possible to "eradicate poverty" or end the cycle of poverty without "redistributing income" to some extent? Explain.
I do not think poverty can be eradicated. It may be ameliorated, but I don't think the amelioration is necessarily the role of our federal government.
 
Top