[Nattering Nabob]

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel. Robert Frost

I'd say this statement (of course it is not the last word on Liberalism) is accurate and I say that as a proud liberal.

Liberalism to me is the opposite of Ayn Rand's self-centered philosophy.

[Nets]

Liberalism to me is the opposite of Ayn Rand's self-centered philosophy.

I disagree.

Is the poor laborer's arguments for higher wages and more welfare not born of self-interest? Is it any different from the upper middle class guy arguing for lower taxes?

Ayn Rand's philosophy (if you can call it that ) is also universal and broadminded, she argues for what she sees as the common good for society, achieved through individual self-interest.

Liberals and Conservatives both seek to maximize the general level of "goodness" in society, they just see different means to this end.

I say all this as a proud old-fashioned liberal, (though not a leftist.)

[QatzelOk]

Is the poor laborer's arguments for higher wages and more welfare not born of self-interest? Is it any different from the upper middle class guy arguing for lower taxes?

It's very different.

Oliver's crying out for "more soup please" is very different than his bosses plea for "more 8-year-old laborers" as well.

It isn't only "poor laborers" who are asking for more equality. Many advantaged people also see how equality actually benefits everyone.

[PBVBROOK]

All people act in thier own self interest. Liberals (hopefully) do not do it to the detriment of others.

[Nattering Nabob]

Is the poor laborer's arguments for higher wages and more welfare not born of self-interest? Is it any different from the upper middle class guy arguing for lower taxes?

Perhaps the laborers request for "more" is self-interested...but for those who grant that request because something besides self-interest tells them to...that is my idea of a liberal.

Ayn Rand might say the laborer is given more because it will secure his services or because it will make him happier and therefore a better employee...but there are people who will give the laborer what he requests because they know it is a just request, and I name those people liberals, just as Robert Frost defined them.

[Zyx]

Is the poor laborer's arguments for higher wages and more welfare not born of self-interest?

False, the poor laborer also goes on strike; reducing its wages to zero. If zero wages is self-interested then I'll be darned.

Is it any different from the upper middle class guy arguing for lower taxes?

Huge, unless it argues out of distaste for governmental policies.

she argues for what she sees as the common good for society, achieved through individual self-interest.

The lady who insists that the mentally handicapped are a burden?

I say all this as a proud old-fashioned liberal, (though not a leftist.)

I lol'd.

Just kidding, I did not laugh although my "I lol'd" did make me lol. lol.

All people act in thier own self interest.

If you mean, once in their life, then yes. If you mean always then false.

A liberal is a man [sic] too broadminded to take his [sic] own side in a quarrel.

This statement probably means that Liberals expound according to philosophies and philosophers as opposed to according to their personal observations.

That is, while a 'conservative' may look to a poor black and say "I had a friend Tom who did not work hard and he's poor and thus so is this black person" a Liberal is capable of responding "Oh, the lack of police officers in this neighborhood likely caused for a crack endemic to start that threatened the livelihood of these children by the violence associable and thus this person is a progeny of that poor epoch." Notice how the Liberal's side is not it's unique take/observation.

In other words, yeah we are smarter.

Frost.

[Nets]

Perhaps the laborers request for "more" is self-interested...but for those who grant that request because something besides self-interest tells them to...that is my idea of a liberal.

Ayn Rand might say the laborer is given more because it will secure his services or because it will make him happier and therefore a better employee...but there are people who will give the laborer what he requests because they know it is a just request, and I name those people liberals, just as Robert Frost defined them.

This is the efficiency wage model, actually. Pay people more to motivate them and keep the real wage above the market clearing rate to cause unemployment and thereby give your laborers the threat of not-having a job, which cannot occur in a market clearing situation. Interesting stuff. See Henry Ford.

By the way, Nabob, I agree with you, I am just trying to spice up the discussion a bit.

False, the poor laborer also goes on strike; reducing its wages to zero. If zero wages is self-interested then I'll be darned.

And if people didn't make economic choices intertemporally, as opposed to making decisions solely based on present income, I'll be darned.

Striking reduces current income with the idea that future income will make up for the reduction. You can't isolate just wages; consider benefits from the union, increased utility from more leisure, etc.

Kumatto, check out the Permanent Income Hypothesis.

If you mean, once in their life, then yes. If you mean always then false.

People always make the choice that they think is in their best interest, in my view.

[Zyx]

People always make the choice that they think is in their best interest, in my view.

This is inconsistent with parenting or other forms of near-suicidal sacrifices.

Striking reduces current income with the idea that future income will make up for the reduction. You can't isolate just wages; consider benefits from the union, increased utility from more leisure, etc.

More in mind is the era of the "Great Depression" handled by that great American novel. [name escapes me.]

The strikes then were selfless. Just lowering the businesses exploitation was enough; this is how many unionists envision their end goal.

You make the labourers out to be less noble than they are.

[Nets]

This is inconsistent with parenting or other forms of near-suicidal sacrifices.

How so? Children are an investment in your old age quality of life.

Kumatto, I think you are confusing self-interest with greed, they are not the same thing.

More in mind is the era of the "Great Depression" handled by that great American novel. [name escapes me.]

Grapes of Wrath perhaps? Excellent book btw.

The strikes then were selfless. Just lowering the businesses exploitation was enough; this is how many unionists envision their end goal. You make the labourers out to be less noble than they are.

Nonsense. Strikers are out to increase their wealth and/or leisure time. You make the laborers out to be more noble than they are; they are human and work under the same principles everyone else does.

[Zyx]

How so? Children are an investment in your old age quality of life.

Is this why your mother raised you? Do you honestly think that? I wonder if you said "Happy Mother's Day" to her today.

Grapes of Wrath perhaps? Excellent book btw.

Yah! Anywho, they revolted for the sake of 'American principles' somewhat. I suppose that they are not real, but it may have been an inspiration for 'real' people.

You make the laborers out to be more noble than they are

Just wanted you to type this.

Lol.

Mindcontrol ftw.

Strikers are out to increase their wealth and/or leisure time.

Relatively and collectively, though.

It's hardly self-interest when its collective.

Group-interest =/= self-interest.

If someone goes to an employer and says "I want a raise" then it is different than "We should get a raise" or "Fire some of us; but raise the rest of our salaries."

[Nets]

Is this why your mother raised you? Do you honestly think that? I wonder if you said "Happy Mother's Day" to her today.

I called and said Happy Mother's day. Do explain though why in certain Asian cultures female fetuses are aborted; could it have to do with earning power?

Women in depressed societies have 7-10 children because of the joy of being a baby factory or because more children = more labor = more earning power?

It's hardly self-interest when its collective.

This makes no sense. Why not? I could see you making the argument that wealth is relative, but I don't think that is what you are saying.

Group-interest =/= self-interest.

If someone goes to an employer and says "I want a raise" then it is different than "We should get a raise" or "Fire some of us; but raise the rest of our salaries."

But consider the collective as a more reliable root to personal self-interest. It's a tool.

Single Employee goes to Employer: "Give me a raise"

Employer: "Fuck you get back to work"

All employees go to Employer: "Give us all raises"

Employer: ".....okay, fine".

You don't see the self interest as work here? When corporations form Cartels, are they acting selflessly or are they strategically banding together to maximize their individual utilities? Unions work the same way, they are labor cartels.

Please note I am not anti-Union, organized labor is important in a just society IMO, but call it what it is.

[Zyx]

I called and said Happy Mother's day.

So, do you or do you not think that your mum raised you solely for her economic wellbeing in the future?

Do explain though why in certain Asian cultures female fetuses are aborted; could it have to do with earning power?

You should contextualize this. In China the females were aborted because of the one-kid ruling. Of course there is more to it than your alternative is offering. For one thing, the productivity of children differs between men and women in that society BUT this does not touch on retirement care. Also, women cost money (dowry) in those societies; which again, does not touch on retirement care.

Maybe, the latter (dowry), has more to do with the Chinese culture. Maybe not. It could just have to do with the Chinese system of propaganda, honestly. Who cares though, they're like 20 ways men.

Women in depressed societies have 7-10 children because of the joy of being a baby factory or because more children = more labor = more earning power?

There is sexual liberalism and child mortality rates to take into account.

Theirs is a culture of child rearing and so that is how they look at their goals in life.

Certainly, there is a hope that the child may be grateful and prosperous but it is not the guiding principle as you are proposing it to be.

This makes no sense. Why not?

Like, if I propose a minimum wage. It's not out of self-interest per se.

When corporations form Cartels, are they acting selflessly or are they strategically banding together to maximize their individual utilities? Unions work the same way, they are labor cartels.

This is interesting, but oftentimes Unions work outside of their labour.

I suppose that you can say that ultimately it is for themselves, but it's still a bit selfless.

For instance, when a Union supports a presidential candidate or so.

I suppose that I'd consider that selfless and you'd consider that selfish. I agree that there is an element of selfishness but I'd hardly consider it 'selfish' in that sometimes pursuing 'justice' or 'equality' is not really 'selfish' as much as altruistic.

If altruism can take the form of selfishness and self-interests then I suppose that there is no quarrel.

I, however, would participate in a labour struggle although I'd likely never have the opportunity to be affected by the policy . . . who knows.

[Rancid]

Is this why your mother raised you? Do you honestly think that?

that's part of the reason people have kids.

Why do you think birth rates in poverty stricken nations and poverty stricken neighbor hoods are higher when compared to more affluent nations and neighborhoods?

[Zyx]

The question was personal . . . I want to know if anyone believes that about their mothers.

You're wrong, and I can explain why after my question is answered.

[Rancid]

what question?

[Zyx]

Whether you believe that your mum raised you solely for her retirement prosperity.

[Rancid]

no

[Zyx]

So then, why in the world are you postulating these views on others?

Have you spoken to any of them to name them as being so deviant?

My mum had four children. Is she just looking out for herself in old age?

Does she only march up and down my little brother's activities to be financially secure in thirty years?

I don't get where these baseless accusations are from!

[Rancid]

i wouldn't say it's completely baseless.

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population/Hunger/FoodFirst/Past.asp

for example, in the above link, they mention that people have high birth rates so that the kids can help out on the farm. It's not retirement, but it's basically an attempt to secure future support for the family.

In poorer countries, people try to have many kids in the off chance that one of them becomes very successful, they can help the rest of the family out. at least according to some of the literature out there. I believe i read this in a book for a family health class i took a few years ago.

I'm not saying that people have kids for the sole purpose of retirement. I'm just saying that in some situations, It's a "value added" proposition.

[Zyx]

It is baseless.

Supposedly, Western society is unique in that children are consumers as opposed to producers and so Westerners choose to have less children for that reason.

However, to say the opposite is nonsense.

I do not disagree that children are producers in feudal societies. I merely believe that the high fertility is due to the amount of sex and the amount of emphasis being around families by those cultures about.

It has nothing to do with retirement, though.

In some societies, the elderly were forced out of the land. If your claim were true then these societies would not have children at all.