Only One is Needed

[Xavier_Onassis]

All right then , how do you caricterise Dickens attitude twards government interventon?
===========================================================
The government intervention in Dicken's day were the Corn Laws.

In the 1700's, each village owned a town commons, which was used to grow food for the town. Sometimes the Church held for the town, sometimes the land was held directly by the village.

The Corn Laws took the lands away from both the Church and the villages and they were turned into grazing lands for sheep owned by the nobility and the large landholders. The people, no longer able to support themselves, were forced to leave Britain and Scotland for the Colonies, or to go to the mill cities of the Midlands, such as Leeds and Manchester to work, when there was work. When there was no work, they turned to crime, alcoholism and were sent to prison, poorhouses or transported to the Colonies, first to what is now the US , then to Canada and Australia.

Dickens was against this government intervention, since it destroyed the traditional way of life and replaced it with something considerably worse.

In no part of A Christmas Carol does Dickens advocate that the government do anything for the people. His focus was on the supposedly Christian business class showing more compassion and understanding for their employees. He suggests that Scrooge would enjoy life more and would be thought of more highly if he paid more attention to his family as well as that pof his employee, Bob Cratchit.
 
Dickens probably thought that the Crown and its bussiness allies should simply leave the people alone: they had already ruined many lives with the Corn Laws and similar schemes.

[Plane]

All right then , how do you caricterise Dickens attitude twards government interventon?
===========================================================
The government intervention in Dicken's day were the Corn Laws.

In the 1700's, each village owned a town commons, which was used to grow food for the town. Sometimes the Church held for the town, sometimes the land was held directly by the village.

The Corn Laws took the lands away from both the Church and the villages and they were turned into grazing lands for sheep owned by the nobility and the large landholders. The people, no longer able to support themselves, were forced to leave Britain and Scotland for the Colonies, or to go to the mill cities of the Midlands, such as Leeds and Manchester to work, when there was work. When there was no work, they turned to crime, alcoholism and were sent to prison, poorhouses or transported to the Colonies, first to what is now the US , then to Canada and Australia.

Dickens was against this government intervention, since it destroyed the traditional way of life and replaced it with something considerably worse.

In no part of A Christmas Carol does Dickens advocate that the government do anything for the people. His focus was on the supposedly Christian business class showing more compassion and understanding for their employees. He suggests that Scrooge would enjoy life more and would be thought of more highly if he paid more attention to his family as well as that pof his employee, Bob Cratchit.
 
Dickens probably thought that the Crown and its bussiness allies should simply leave the people alone: they had already ruined many lives with the Corn Laws and similar schemes.

Horay !
Mark the calendar !
I agree with the whole thing.

[Universe Prince]

I'd like to say a few things in defense of Plane's position.

While I agree that Dickens did not intend Plane's interpretation of "A Christmas Carol", Scrooge's conversion is not that far removed from what many conservatives consider core values: charity, the importance of family, and dealing fairly with others. I know, some folks are going to say that's a crock because conservatives are selfish and callous, but the point isn't how bad conservatives might seem to you, but how conservatives, many of them at least, see themselves. And this would not be the only story conservatives filter to think of as reflecting their values. I know very few conservatives who don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" and believe it reflects their basic values.

One thing that has, for some time, stood out in my mind as interesting about "A Christmas Carol" is that for all its seemingly anti-capitalism, anti-individualist sermonizing, it seems to do this by illustrating the importance of the individual. Scrooge may stand in for a whole host of social ideas and attitudes, but he is only one person. We learn in the story that part of the shaping of Scrooge was his childhood. The bitterness took seed in his heart as a result of how the society in which he lived treated him. Bob Cratchit, the good family man, gives thanks for his employment to Scrooge. And who is it that will help to save poor Tiny Tim's life? Society? No, Scrooge. (Which Scrooge can do, oddly enough, because he has been a mean miser and has lots of money.) I'm not saying this is the ultimate message of the story or that Dickens' intended this as a point in the story, I'm just saying it's there.

Someone could make the argument that only see that because I want to see it. And that is a possibility. But then, don't we all bring our own perspective to art? Recently Robert Anton Wilson died, and one the articles I read about him said that although Wilson himself tended toward libertarian ideas, his writings were beloved by people of many varying political and philosophical stripes. Granted, Dickens' and Wilson's work are not really all that similar, but the point is that frequently what one gets from art has as much to do with what one brings to the art as the content of the art itself. So while it can be argued that Plane is incorrectly characterizing Scrooge and the story, for Plane to claim that Scrooge's journey is one from liberalism to conservatism is neither entirely out of bounds nor entirely invalid.

[Plane]

So while it can be argued that Plane is incorrectly characterizing Scrooge and the story, for Plane to claim that Scrooge's journey is one from liberalism to conservatism is neither entirely out of bounds nor entirely invalid.

Hahahahahahahahaha

Whoop Whoop   


Thank you U.P.

[Universe Prince]

I do what I can.

[Plane]

In the 1700's, each village owned a town commons, which was used to grow food for the town. Sometimes the Church held for the town, sometimes the land was held directly by the village.

Does this relate to the "Tragedy of the Commons".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

"Aristotle who said: "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual."

[Xavier_Onassis]

n the 1700's, each village owned a town commons, which was used to grow food for the town. Sometimes the Church held for the town, sometimes the land was held directly by the village.


Does this relate to the "Tragedy of the Commons".Yes, it is part of this.

======================================
The Corn Laws and the Enclosures of the commons and their use by the large landholders were part of the process by which England and Scotland were changed from subsistence agriculture for the benefit of the community (essentially a form of post-feudal Christian socialism) to a combined mercantilist (government-assisted capitalism) system of wool fabric manufacture for the benefit of the large landholders and the millowners.

This caused extreme disparities between the income of the poor and the wealthy (a usual result of unregulated capitalism), and Dickens was against this.

[_JS]

Surprisingly (or perhaps not surprisingly) I don't fully disagree UP.

On the one hand, Dickens was by no means a modern day conservative, nor was the character of Scrooge. I think where you and Plane differ in your discussion is that Plane fails to understand the workhouses and Poor Laws fully. He sees them as social welfare and government interference. On the contrary these were something quite opposite. They were deliberately set up to demean and degrade the poor. It represented a major shift in attitudes towards the poor. The Victorian attitude was a change that saw the poor with disgust and contempt.

I concede that modern conservatives see themselves as a transformed Scrooge, but I disagree that leftists are a pre-transformation Scrooge. Do they characterize the poor with disgust? Do they wish to establish deliberately demeaning programs through religion to dissuade the poor from seeking charitable aid?

On the other hand, Dickens was no Marxist, though he often received their praise. He was a capitalist of his own, though not a very good Victorian capitalist. He was a standard left-leaning British Liberal (I mean the party, not the American corruption of the word). He owned a very nice piece of property and enjoyed some of the Victorian entertainment of his day. Yet, he also generally spoke against the wealthy and aristocratic treatment of the poor.

So yeah, I was probably a little harsh on Plane (somewhat deliberately, in hopes he might go learn a bit more of Dickens or perhaps read A Bleak House one of Dickens most superb works that delves into the social, political, and economic issues of his day). Art is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but it doesn't mean that one has to accept poor interpretation. For example, Puff the Magic Dragon was just a song for children, no matter how many anti-marijuana folks like to make it into something much more sinister

[Plane]

"
Plane, this is a primary example of taking something and revising it to fit your political view. I'd have thought evangelicals would be against that. "


"So yeah, I was probably a little harsh on Plane (somewhat deliberately, in hopes he might go learn a bit more of Dickens or perhaps read A Bleak House one of Dickens most superb works that delves into the social, political, and economic issues of his day). Art is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but it doesn't mean that one has to accept poor interpretation. For example, Puff the Magic Dragon was just a song for children, no matter how many anti-marijuana folks like to make it into something much more sinister "

   I am extremely well pleased at how well my subtext was understood.

    There are those within and without  Christianity who consider the message of Christ to be malliable  , so why not reverse the teaching of any teacher to mean what you want it to?

     I agree that art is somehat in the eye of the beholder , but you are right that it is not entirely so , the message of the messenger should have some firmness elese the messenger may as well stay home because the recipient will take any wording to the meaning he already has.

    As to Dickins being Bill O'Riley , I amit this to be hyperbole, but Dickins understood some points of conservatism better than the common modern Conservative does;

A person who can't pay, gets another person who can't pay, to guarantee that he can pay.
-Dickins    -http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Charles-Dickens/1/index.html

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

-Dickins   -http://www.online-literature.com/quotes/quotation_search.php?author=Charles%20Dickens


and one I just learned in this search

Electric communication will never be a substitute for the face of someone who with their soul encourages another person to be brave and true.
- Dickins    -http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Charles-Dickens/1/index.html

[Plane]

Do they characterize the poor with disgust? Do they wish to establish deliberately demeaning programs through religion to dissuade the poor from seeking charitable aid?

    I think that the usual Liberal attitude twards the poor is paternalistic ,not a species of hatred , but a conviction that the poor are helpless and stupid , while the welth of the government ought to be used to releive their eternal misery because nothing that they could do for themselves would suffice.

     I don't think that the Houseing projects , welfare programs , and free cheese were intended to be demeaning , it turns out that way , but not by intent.
     Are you certain that the demeaning nature of the treatment of the poor in the time of Dickins was an intended program?

[_JS]

Are you certain that the demeaning nature of the treatment of the poor in the time of Dickins was an intended program?

Absolutely. There was a Royal Commission set up to examine the operation of the Poor Laws, which had been relatively unchanged since 1601. This commission offered the findings that would result in the 1834 Poor Law Amendment. In some ways the 1832 Commission's findings were predetermined because it was primarily written by Edwin Chadwick and the English economist Nassau Senior. They were influenced a great deal by the utilitarian views of Jeremy Bentham and the theories of Thomas Malthus.

With those findings and the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 (plus the debate that surrounded it) there is no question as to the aim of the workhouses and the law itself. I find it humorous that some people today (both on the right and left) consider this a new tactic. Just goes to show that nothing is ever new.

There are those within and without  Christianity who consider the message of Christ to be malliable  , so why not reverse the teaching of any teacher to mean what you want it to?

Which is why sola scriptura is such a problem within Protestantism, but that's a pandora's box for another day

[The_Professor]

I find it most encouraging that my simple "advertisement" for Brownback has stirred the intellectual juices. Commendations to all, I say!

Soem Reasons I support Sen. Brownback for President:

"As a father of five, two adopted, Senator Brownback believes that life is the most precious gift that we must defend as a nation. For this reason, he has been a champion in sponsoring the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, Laci and Connor’s Law, and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.  In addition, Senator Brownback has worked hard to end taxpayer funding of abortion, ban human cloning, and he has opposed federal funding of questionable scientific research that destroys human life. Brownback is firmly committed to overturning the tragic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which legalized abortion by judicial mandate throughout nine months of pregnancy. As well, he is the primary sponsor of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act."

...He will continue to work for the appointment of strict constructionists to the federal bench who will respect the law and our Constitution.

...Senator Brownback was a chief sponsor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would stop activist judges from imposing same-sex marriage on the people of all 50 states and redefining marriage for all of us. This Amendment would preempt such arbitrary judicial rulings by defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the U.S. Constitution.

...Senator Brownback supports voluntary prayer in public school, freedom to post the Ten Commandments in public areas, educational vouchers for parents with children in religious schools, and keeping ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.

...In addition, in order to remove the financial incentive of the ACLU and other left-wing groups from suing various governmental entities related to First Amendment and religious expression issues, Brownback has authored legislation which would end reimbursement of legal fees for the ACLU from taxpayer’s funds."

...Senator Brownback has advocated freedom-friendly policies such as a flat tax for all Americans, permanent implementation of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the Balanced Budget Amendment, abolishing the Marriage Tax Penalty and the Death Tax, and drastic simplification and flattening of the IRS tax code. Senator Brownback has also been the leading advocate for the creation of federal commissions, similar to the Military Base Closing and Realignment Commission (BRAC), which would periodically review and/or terminate federal programs that are no longer needed or working properly. 

...Senator Brownback was also a leader in passing comprehensive welfare reform in the 1990s. This reform has been a tremendously successful policy that has led millions of Americans out of a life of dependency and into the workplace.

...Senator Brownback believes in the importance of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Senator Brownback understands that this right is not just for purposes of hunting, but also for citizens to protect themselves and their families. To support this constitutional right, Senator Brownback has advocated policies such as ending bogus lawsuits against gun manufacturers by trial lawyers, supporting the right to carry for law-abiding citizens, and opposing the creation of a centralized federal gun registry.  For this advocacy, Senator Brownback has consistently received an ‘A’ rating from the National Rifle Association.

...Senator Brownback, a Catholic, believes that we must build a culture of life where the inherent dignity of every human person is respected. His vision of human dignity is a holistic vision, reflected in his unwavering support for the unborn child, his work for the poor in Africa who are at constant risk of violence or famine, and his advocacy for political dissidents in repressive nations such as North Korea or Cuba.

...Senator Brownback was honored and deeply moved by the opportunity to meet two giants of human history, the late Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II. It is their same vision of human rights, freedom, and respect for life that illuminates Senator Brownback’s work on daily basis.   Senator Brownback authored the bills that granted both of these great saints the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award granted by the United States Congress.

...Senator Brownback adamantly opposes those that wish to protest at veteran burials and supports efforts to stop that horrible practice."

source: Bronwback for President

I support each and every one of these positions. Not surprisingly, I may add.    Why don't you?

see http://www.brownback.com/news/campaindetails.asp?id=43 for an example of his earnestness.

Respectfully,

The Professor, Proud to be a 2006 NCAA National Champion Gator!

[Plane]

I find it most encouraging that my simple "advertisement" for Brownback has stirred the intellectual juices. Commendations to all, I say!

There is never any telling in advance what might cause a thread to go well like this , in retrospect Senator Brownback seems to excite speculation on the nature of Conservatism .

     I like the  platform  of Senator Brownback as you present it , he strikes the right keys , even if he is not chosen as president it is important that these points be represented in the race so that the public can be educated in he resulting debate.

      Does the Senator also have sincerity , talent and rapport with the public?


     

The Professor, Proud to be a 2006 NCAA National Champion Gator!

Oh, is Florida having a good year?

[Universe Prince]

I support each and every one of these positions. Not surprisingly, I may add.    Why don't you?

I explained some of my objections before, but I'll take another stab at it. From my perspective, "we must build a culture of life where the inherent dignity of every human person is respected" does not square up with:

Senator Brownback was a chief sponsor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which would stop activist judges from imposing same-sex marriage on the people of all 50 states and redefining marriage for all of us. This Amendment would preempt such arbitrary judicial rulings by defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the U.S. Constitution.

And "Senator Brownback believes in the importance of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" does not square up with this:

to remove the financial incentive of the ACLU and other left-wing groups from suing various governmental entities related to First Amendment and religious expression issues, Brownback has authored legislation which would end reimbursement of legal fees for the ACLU from taxpayer’s funds.

And, going back to the original post, "We believe in liberty" does not square up with the ideas like the "Marriage Protection Amendment" or this:

I introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2006 and was pleased to see the President sign it into law. The Act increased fines on broadcast networks that air obscene and indecent material during the hours children are most likely to be watching. Shielding our children from the violence, obscenity, and indecency in today’s media continues to be one of my top priorities.

As I said before, I doubt Senator Brownback's self-professed belief in liberty because he seems to believe "a culture that encourages what is right and discourages what is wrong—and has the wisdom to understand the difference" starts with legislation rather than with liberty. His positions as he presents them seem, imo, contradictory and to stem from the widely accepted but, again imo, false notion that the path to a moral culture is paved by legislative control of society. That is why Senator Brownback does not have and is highly unlikely to ever gain my support.

[_JS]

I've always wondered a few things about Libertarians Prince, if you don't mind answering. Honest questions, so no tricky follow ups or expected answers here.

1. I know the FDA isn't well-liked, but look at some of the minor stuff they do. Let's take something like rules for pasteurization of milk. Mind you, there other processes that work (we use a very expedient process in this country, which is actually what manufacturers prefer, but is also why our cheese and milk taste like crap compared to Europe and Canada). Still, this is likely an overall good thing as it prevents nasty infections from the public. Who would handle such minor regulations with Libertarians? Would it be no one?

2. How do you explain The Jungle? by Upton Sinclair. I'm aware of the background of the author and the book, but the story itself is very much based on reality. Isn't it difficult to argue for industry without the burden of government when past examples of it have not exactly been shining moments? I know Sinclair didn't really mean for his book to inspire further legislation on inspection, but that was an argument from a socialist view, not a Libertarian view.