I’m not talking theoretical at all, though I am speaking generally. Yes, there are people who legitimately need help and I’m not against helping them. I question whether the government is best suited to help people though. Government does not exist for that purpose and our Constitution does not make allowances government to fill that role. That is a role better suited for churches and charities, not government.

I do not say everyone will be happy under any circumstances. I only claim that each person is responsible for finding their own happiness. The Declaration of Independence does not say we have a right to be happy. It says we have a right to pursue happiness. No one is responsible for the happiness of another, nor can they be.

The system we have now and what liberals support is a cradle to grave dependence on government for many in our society. Such a system and such a way of viewing the world leads to less happiness, not more. When someone else is responsible for providing what you need you will never be satisfied with what is provided. We see that all the time.

There will always be exceptions. Even Jesus said, “the poor you have with you always.” But the context of Jesus statement was that the poor could wait. They were not the most important thing at the time. Government should stick to what government exists for and what it is good at. Things like national defense, foreign relations, trade, etc. Let others do the work of taking care of those who truly need help. That is much more efficient both because those providing the help are much closer to those who need it and because that closeness works to prevent the abuses we have now.

As for your theoretical question about liberals, conservatives and the black vote, you are working with the old definitions. Yes, classical liberalism would support the black vote. But modern conservatives is virtually equivalent to classical liberalism.

Ultimately I’m not sure that the extreme left shares any goals with me or conservatives in general. For the most part the left doesn’t bother too much with arguing the merits of various points of view as I’ve done here. Instead they attempt to destroy, if only metaphorically, those whose views are in opposition to their own. While I don’t claim that has never happened on the right, it is not the norm. For the left it has become a way of life. I experience it often when posting on other sites. I love it when I can have a good debate with someone from the left and we actually discuss substantive issues. But it doesn’t happen often. Most of the time the first thing that happens is someone just calls me an idiot or worse and dismisses my arguments out of hand without bothering to deal with the arguments I make.

In the end I stand by my descriptions. I wish it were different but I don’t think it is. I’d love for us to all just get along and work together but I don’t see that happening any time soon. The left isn’t interested.

Thanks for reading Sarah. Even if you’re arguing against me I always enjoy our conversations. Don’t be a stranger.

On to your post:
Is it possible that you are offering a false choice? You said that “the liberal view is utopian and dangerous”, and I see your point. However, it seems to me that telling everyone to man up and take responsibility and then basing the system on expecting every person to do so is also dangerous, because of the following:

1) I believe that there are places of our society in which people can’t get out. I believe that there are some people that are subdued race issues, social class issues, environment, and the poverty line.
In addition to this, what will you teach the mentally ill homeless man? You say you will find ways for him to feed himself, to which I can only answer, “Like what?” (I realize that you are being metaphorical, but I feel like arguing this issue completely theoretically doesn’t make much sense, and leads to idealism.)
2) I also believe that there will be some who will take responsibility, and then overstep their bounds. You hypothesize that the only reason someone will not be happy in a conservative system is if they don’t take responsibility for themselves. However, there will be some who will be responsible for themselves and then some (Read: corruption). There will be those who are trodden by the corrupt, even though they are doing all they can to be ‘responsible’.

Granted, both of these points could theoretically be resolved, but in that case you’re arguing an ideal that will never exist. I think that’s dangerous.

There wouldn’t be conservatives if liberals did everything right, and vice versa. (For example, could it not be argued that it would have been “liberal,” or, “not conservative” to allow blacks to vote?) The closest we will ever come to an ideal society can be found in balance. If conservatives and liberals would stop seeing each other as enemies and start seeing each other as people, individual people, with souls and feelings and beliefs, who share a common goal (the greater good) maybe we could get some work done. There can be reconciliation between the two. In fact, there should be.

I have just seen one of the best explanations of the differences between Conservatives and Liberals of today at Ron’s Musings. I found him through Blonde Sagacity. She is on vacation, so she has guest bloggers on her blog all