Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Another collection of one-sided arguments. Always from the left.

Ha. What would you like us to do, VB? The writers choose to answer a question or not. We're not all leftists. The question did specifically address leftists, though - ("Why do you believe in this leftist ideology...")

Why don't you enroll in a BYU independent study course so you can be eligible to be a writer, then apply, then post all the conservative opinions you want?

Well, this particular question seemed to be from a person who doesn't support government welfare programs asking board members who do support government welfare programs why they support them. So I wouldn't have expect any opponents of government welfare programs to have answered.

vorpal blade wrote:Another collection of one-sided arguments. Always from the left.

Oh, give me a break. You try to claim that you are always "answering in the kindest way possible", or whatever? This doesn't exactly sound friendly to me.

But what do I know? I'm 1/3 your age, so I don't have as much life experience as you.

vorpal blade wrote:Another collection of one-sided arguments. Always from the left.

For your right-wing opinions, watch Fox News and read Drudge Report. Done.

Vorpal, I can't tell whether you are fishing, or if you're just upset at the moment because there seems to be a lack of conservative thought on the board as of late. I agree with you that most of the political opinions that have been expressed of late have been from the left. However, most of the questions have specifically requested it. How does one defend a liberal point of view in the church, how does one defend social welfare when it is "satan's plan", etc etc. You want more conservative thought on the board? Ask a question requesting it.

Never quite sure what to say about these things. I'm right-of-center. I know Laser Jock and P.D. Kirke are both to the right of me. I'm pretty sure Yellow, Claudio, Foreman, and a whole host of others are conservative too. In fact, I think the only outright and self-described liberal is Black Sheep. So, why the hate and second guessing? We're not conservative enough for you?

Vorpal, we're all young adults in our 20's. Of course we're going to be more "liberal" than you. Give it another decade or so, and I'm sure we'll have all shifted. Chill out, man.

Cognoscente,

First let me say that I appreciate how kind and thoughtful your posts have been of late.

You ask, “why the hate and second guessing?” For my part there is no hate. I love everybody. Perhaps we are attuned differently. To me comments like those made by Giovanni Schwartz and Gimgimno sound like true hate, contempt, sarcasm, mocking, and anger. And totally uncalled for. If you agree with them you probably don’t see it the same way I do, and I understand that.

Everyone,

I realize this question asked for the opinion of those who believe "government is the best solution to poverty." Actually, none of the writers who answered were sure that they did believe it, so I think the question was fair game for anyone. Why didn’t some conservative writers answer? I think, in general, it is because the conservatives on the board don’t like to get involved with political questions. Most conservatives I know just want to be left alone, and are not interested in proselyting their political views.

The question is, then, what do I expect from the board? The problem I had with the answers to this question, and why I say they are one-sided, is not that they are from writers who support government welfare programs. That only these writers responded is entirely reasonable. It is because the writers who did respond go beyond their reasons for supporting these programs and trash the views of the opposition. They greatly distort the opposition’s point of view. They make a caricature of conservative thought. They build up a straw-man only to tear it done. They mock the opposition. That’s not fair, and it isn’t right. And this hasn't been the only question treated like that.

I expect higher standards from the board. What I expect is what Elder Robert S. Wood said in the April 2006 General Conference. In particular I found interesting these words:

Elder Wood wrote: Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?

I recall that as a graduate student I wrote a critique of an important political philosopher. It was clear that I disagreed with him. My professor told me that my paper was good, but not good enough. Before you launch into your criticism, she said, you must first present the strongest case for the position you are opposing, one that the philosopher himself could accept. I redid the paper. I still had important differences with the philosopher, but I understood him better, and I saw the strengths and virtues, as well as limitations, of his belief. I learned a lesson that I’ve applied across the spectrum of my life.

General Andrew Jackson, as he walked along the line at the Battle of New Orleans, said to his men, “Gentlemen, elevate your guns a little lower!” I think many of us need to elevate our “guns” a little lower. On the other hand, we need to raise the level of private and public discourse. We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character. We need, as the Lord counseled, to uphold honest, wise, and good men and women wherever they are found and to recognize that there are “among all sects, parties, and denominations” those who are “kept from the truth [of the gospel] because they know not where to find it.” 11 Would we hide that light because we have entered into the culture of slander, of stereotyping, of giving and seeking offense?

It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt. It is a primary tool of those who occupy the large and spacious building that Father Lehi saw in vision. 12 Jude, the brother of Christ, warned that “there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.” 13

I don’t say that the Board is the worst offender in the world, but it could stand some improvement, in my not-so-humble opinion. And I say this because I love the Board.

krebscout wrote:Ha. What would you like us to do, VB? The writers choose to answer a question or not. We're not all leftists. The question did specifically address leftists, though - ("Why do you believe in this leftist ideology...")

Why don't you enroll in a BYU independent study course so you can be eligible to be a writer, then apply, then post all the conservative opinions you want?

I tried to answer the first part of your question to me in my last post.

Thank you for the suggestion of enrolling in a BYU independent study course. I don't think there is any way the Board would allow an outspoken conservative like me to ever be on the Board. And I think I can hear the cheering about that from 600 miles away (and further).

No way - politics would certainly not keep us from hiring anyone. I'm pretty sure that all the editors (who have the final say in who gets hired) are all pretty conservative anyway. I won't deny that past personality clashes have been factors in the process, but even that can be (and has been) overcome by a truly stellar application.

vorpal blade wrote: It is because the writers who did respond go beyond their reasons for supporting these programs and trash the views of the opposition. They greatly distort the opposition’s point of view. They make a caricature of conservative thought. They build up a straw-man only to tear it done. They mock the opposition. That’s not fair, and it isn’t right. And this hasn't been the only question treated like that.

Though I'll give you that we have treated other questions like that, I thought that the answers to this question were trash-free. I don't see any place in the answers where we the writers (including ourselves) have held up a so-called "conservative" argument to trash it. The only thing I saw "trashed" was the satan argument, which was addressed by GH&K in the form it was submitted by the question asker.

One thing that I think will help is if you realize that when we say something is not the case, we're not by any means implying that such an argument is a common and/or conservative one. It's for illustrative purposes.

vorpal blade wrote:Why didn’t some conservative writers answer? I think, in general, it is because the conservatives on the board don’t like to get involved with political questions. Most conservatives I know just want to be left alone, and are not interested in proselyting their political views.

Heh. I don't know about other conservatives, but this is largely true for me. I do occasionally talk politics with friends, but for the most part I find politics frustrating and I prefer to avoid getting into public arguments about it. I also don't feel informed enough to really debate. (Though, part of the reason for that is that it seems impossible to find out what's actually going on: each side will make contradictory claims and back them up with plausible-sounding arguments. This is what frustrates me.)

Don't thank me yet, old man. Not that I don't appreciate it.

vorpal blade wrote:It is because the writers who did respond go beyond their reasons for supporting these programs and trash the views of the opposition. They greatly distort the opposition’s point of view. They make a caricature of conservative thought. They build up a straw-man only to tear it done. They mock the opposition. That’s not fair, and it isn’t right. And this hasn't been the only question treated like that.

Wait, this coming from the asshat who created a puppet account called Gay Blade to be the voice of a facet of personality with same-sex attraction, and proceeded to go on for a dozen threads using the laughably worst leftist talking points conceivable? I mean, come ON, dude. Don't be trippin' Matthew 23. Be honest with yourself.

I'm sorry I posted as Gay Blade. It was not a good idea for me to discuss gay beliefs or practices in this manner. I am sorry I caused some of you stress, pain, and suffering. I am sorry for any misrepresentations I might have made. I apologized before, but I do it again now. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. As part of my repentance process I have not posted as Gay Blade for more than four months, until now. And I do not intend to again post as Gay Blade.

I agree that this wasn’t the most egregious example of first portraying the opposition’s arguments in a ridiculous or false light, and then trashing it. But perhaps I need to illustrate better what I am taking about.

Trashing the doctrine of agency and Satan’s plan.

The reader stated in his question:

life wrote: Also, as I understand it, Lucifer sought to use the power of government to create utopia (I'm pretty sure poverty would not have existed) by taking away agency. Why mimic that plan?

The writers changed the reader’s argument in a way to trivialize it. The writers wrote:

GH&K wrote: So, when the all-too-common "Satan's plan" arguments get brought up over and over again in terms of a narrow argument (usually welfare), I get very skeptical. Furthermore, you seem to assume you know a lot more about Lucifer's plan than we've been given in the scriptures. We know that Lucifer "sought to destroy the agency of man" (Moses 4:3) and that's it. A single verse. Anything else you've heard is extrapolation from that, and not doctrinal.

Waldorf and Sauron further mocked the reader and ridiculed the doctrine by giving what they (and not the reader) would suppose is the method Satan would use to take away agency. They make false assumptions regarding the reader’s actual position. They write:

Waldorf and Sauron wrote: Oh come on, the Satan argument? By your definition, Prop 8 and murder laws are also akin to Satan's plan. As the Marx Brothers up there pointed out, there's a huge, huge difference between people who are mindless automatons just going through the motions all sinless and superficial (a.k.a. Satan's plan) and people who have agency but are subject to rules and laws (no matter how cruel or forceful).

Rating Pending then chimes in with his misrepresentation of the reader’s comment.

Rating Pending wrote: I’m saying that maybe those who support government programs to help the poor aren’t trying to save the souls of everyone who pays taxes. Maybe they’re just trying to help poor people.

No one is in danger of losing their agency if the government helps the poor.

Anyone can "win" an argument who makes up silly arguments, implies that they are from his opposition, and then trashes them. Elder Wood taught us a higher way, where you first present the strongest case for the position you are opposing, one that the asker of the question could accept, before you launch into your criticism.

What would a stronger case have been that the reader probably actually implied? We could start by considering the scriptures as President James E. Faust did in his First Presidency message of January, 2007

President Faust wrote: I once heard Ernest LeRoy Hatch, former president of the Guatemala City temple, say, “The devil is not smart because he is the devil; he is smart because he is old.” Indeed, the devil is old, and he was not always the devil. Initially, he was not the perpetrator of evil. He was with the hosts of heaven in the beginning. He was “an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God.”12 He came before Christ and proposed to God the Father, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”13 This he wanted to do by force, destroying the agency of man.

Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force.14

We see that Satan’s plan was to achieve an equality of results (“redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost”) using force, which takes away agency. It was not by making people “mindless automatons” or any other such nonsense.

This eternal principle was strongly taught on numerous occasions. In the November 1976 issue of the Church magazine The New Era we read from a Church scholar:

Daniel H. Ludlow wrote: But Lucifer is trying to run up as high a score as possible, and he does this by trying to keep us individually from achieving the great divine purposes for which we came here upon this earth, including the exercise of our free agency. He can do it by denying us any one of the four essential qualities of moral free agency. He can do it by denying us the opportunity of choice, and he tries to do this through certain types of governments (dictatorships), through the lack of governments (anarchy), and so on. He tries to do this by destroying, in our minds at least, the idea that there is a necessity of opposition, and therefore he tries to teach us “there is no sin. It mattereth not what a man does; whatsoever a man doeth is not sin. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” Thus he destroys the role of opposition in our lives, or at least he attempts to do so.
He can also do it by destroying our freedom of choice, and he does this by enticing us to give up our right of free agency to other persons or to other institutions and allow them to make our choices for us, resulting in the evil that presidents of the Church have repeatedly warned against in communism and socialism and other orders of this type.

Emphasis added.

A stronger case would point out that we apparently give up a portion of our agency when we shift to the government our responsibility to help the poor or allow the government to make other choices for us. Specifically communism and socialism are examples of evil governments of this type.

Some further quotes. From President Henry D. Moyle (Conference Report, Oct. 1947, p. 46.

President Henry D. Moyle wrote: All we have to do is … examine any movement that may be brought into our midst … and if it … attempt[s] to deprive us in the slightest respect of our free agency, we should avoid it as we would avoid immorality or anything else that is vicious. … Free agency is as necessary for our eternal salvation as is our virtue. And … as we guard our virtue with our lives, so should we guard our free agency.

President Marion G. Romney, as a member of the Council of the Twelve, told us (Speeches of the Year, Brigham Young University Press, 1957, pp. 10-11):

President Romney wrote: One of the fundamental doctrines of revealed truth is that … God endowed men with free agency (see Moses 7:32). The preservation of this free agency is more important than the preservation of life itself. … Everything which militates against man’s enjoyment of this endowment persuades not to believe in Christ, for he is the author of free agency.

Now the world today is in the throes of a great social and political revolution. In almost every department of society laws and practices are being daily proposed and adopted which greatly alter the course of our lives. Indeed, some of them are literally shaking the foundations of our political and social institutions. If you would know truth from error in this bitterly contested arena, apply Mormon’s test to these innovations [as recorded in Moro. 7:16–18]. Do they facilitate or restrict the exercise of man’s divine endowment of free agency? Tested by this standard, most of them will fall quickly into their proper category as between good and evil.

So, applying Elder Wood’s principles, before you start mocking and ridiculing the doctrine of Agency and Satan’s plan, you first need to present it as something many believe is taught by presidents of the Church (as Brother Ludlow says), and it means that we give up some of our agency and assist in Satan’s plan when we allow any “innovation” in our laws and practices which would use force or compulsory means to achieve its aims of equalization of results. Only after you acknowledge that position can you try your own interpretations of the scriptures or statements by Church leaders to suit your own purposes, or feel free to try and show us that you are wiser, more enlightened, more in tune with the Spirit, or understand the scriptures and the gospel better than do the prophets and Church scholars.

There were a number of other “problems” I found with the writer’s responses, where they misrepresent the purpose of a free market and free government, badly misrepresent capitalism, and misrepresent the law of tithing. With these strawmen they criticize the views of the person who asked the question. I could give details, if anyone was interested.

But, as you say, this wasn’t the worst answer in terms of doing the sort of thing I have been talking about.

Don't you see, vorpal? You do the same with your arguments against liberalism. For example, in your arguments against communism, you put part and parcel the political structure that installed such a flawed version of the system, rather than considering the system on its own merits, or looking at what it might look like under a different structure.

Let us take the given example. For starters, the question was inherently flawed. Lucifer could not possibly have sought to use the power of government. Government is a man-made structure, one that did not exist (at least for us, the future residents of this world) before this world. That point aside, the writers were accurate in stating that, anything beyond what is stated in the scriptures is speculation, even if it is presented in a church magazine. While such can certainly be occasionally profitable for moral reproof, applying it to disagree with specific man-made structures causes it to inevitably break down.

I would offer my own hypothesis, supported by more than one general authority, but nevertheless, like most things we have discussed at length, is not official doctrine of the church. I would hypothesize that no man made institution, or structure, can remove moral agency. Consider if you will, a government so totalitarian that it took every child into state care upon birth. It is feasible that such a government would have the military power to do this. However, it is not even the least bit reasonable to say that it could require by law that the mother not miss or love her child who was taken. Of course there are mitigating circumstances regarding the choices that such an individual makes, but it is absolutely possible, under any government whatsoever, to live what the Lord would consider a moral life under those circumstances.

Therefore, using the argument that satan's plan ran in direct opposition to the Lord's, and that following it would make it impossible to choose the Lord, and man-made government could not possibly do this, it logically follows that any structure a man-made government has cannot be specifically satan's plan. (Do not read from this that I am arguing that no government can do things which are immoral. If we stretch it to that extreme, it becomes untenable. That is not what I believe, and that is not what I'm contending.)

Your request, Vorpal, also presupposes that every board writer knows every possible contention to the points they will present. They are human. They will disagree with ideas based on their knowledge of them. Requesting that they give an argument about why a conservative ideology is necessary would be the same as asking you to give the liberal argument for why a liberal believes as they do. Just as they are incapable of fully comprehending an ideology that they disagree with, so are you.

For the record, I wasn't trying to sound truly hateful or contemptuous. Angry? No. Mocking? Not quite. Sarcastic? I'll give you that one.

I think the whole reason why the "left side" of the Board is so outspoken is because they are such a minority here at BYU. They are accustomed to having to regularly defend their opinions from megaconservatives that don't know why they have the political opinions they do (whereas you do, vorpal). That can get frustrating. The conservatives are accustomed to being part of the majority mindset here and generally don't have to justify why they think the way they do. They don't need a outlet like the Board to express what they think and why like the liberals generally do.

That being said, I think this forum is getting too politically charged lately. We either need to make a new forum for political stuff or everyone just needs to cool their jets.

Marduk wrote:Don't you see, vorpal? You do the same with your arguments against liberalism. For example, in your arguments against communism, you put part and parcel the political structure that installed such a flawed version of the system, rather than considering the system on its own merits, or looking at what it might look like under a different structure.

I understand that you use a different definition of communism, relating to your understanding of what Marx said. I’m just using the term as it is commonly used, and as used by Church leaders. There is no intent here to demonize communism as you understand it. When I’m talking to you I try to make the distinction clear. And if I try to present the views of liberalism I try to be fair.

Marduk wrote:Let us take the given example. For starters, the question was inherently flawed. Lucifer could not possibly have sought to use the power of government. Government is a man-made structure, one that did not exist (at least for us, the future residents of this world) before this world. That point aside, the writers were accurate in stating that, anything beyond what is stated in the scriptures is speculation, even if it is presented in a church magazine. While such can certainly be occasionally profitable for moral reproof, applying it to disagree with specific man-made structures causes it to inevitably break down.

We don’t know all the details of Satan’s plan. He could have planned to have some sort of controlling organization, which we today call government. I agree that the question was not worded as well as it could have been. I think the question meant to say that governments which use compulsory means to achieve goals such as eliminating poverty act in a way consistent with Lucifer’s plan in the premortal world, and according to Lucifer’s current plan, as we learn from presidents of the Church. Again, give the benefit of doubt to your opposition, when the statement is ambiguous, according to Elder Wood’s principles.

The writers gave a part of one scripture, and said it was the only scripture, but that is not true. You have to take into consideration verse 1, which explains what the plan hopes to accomplish, as well as verse 3, the method of accomplishing it. I disagree that anything outside of canonized scripture is speculation. D&C 68:4 tells us that “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” Not everything everyone has said when moved upon by the Holy Ghost has been adopted into our standard works, yet it is all scripture. I think it is a dangerous principle to cavalierly dismiss anything the prophets have said simply because you don’t find it in the standard works, and you don’t like what they are teaching. I fail to see how profitable something is if it can’t be applied to specific man-made structures.

Marduk wrote:I would offer my own hypothesis, supported by more than one general authority, but nevertheless, like most things we have discussed at length, is not official doctrine of the church. I would hypothesize that no man made institution, or structure, can remove moral agency. Consider if you will, a government so totalitarian that it took every child into state care upon birth. It is feasible that such a government would have the military power to do this. However, it is not even the least bit reasonable to say that it could require by law that the mother not miss or love her child who was taken. Of course there are mitigating circumstances regarding the choices that such an individual makes, but it is absolutely possible, under any government whatsoever, to live what the Lord would consider a moral life under those circumstances.

I’d be interested in your General Authority quotes. As has been pointed out, and is part of the priesthood and Relief Society lessons for this month, there is a lot more to agency than merely the capacity to make choices. Anything that restricts our choices, or compels us to do certain things, diminishes our agency. Granted, some of that is necessary when we live in any society, but a lot of these “innovations” are not necessary, and comes from a desire to force others to contribute to their social causes – usually with the intent to equalize outcomes. We are taught to avoid such innovations, regardless of whether we think we can live a moral life or not with these restrictions. We should cherish our agency as we cherish virtue.

Marduk wrote:Therefore, using the argument that satan's plan ran in direct opposition to the Lord's, and that following it would make it impossible to choose the Lord, and man-made government could not possibly do this, it logically follows that any structure a man-made government has cannot be specifically satan's plan. (Do not read from this that I am arguing that no government can do things which are immoral. If we stretch it to that extreme, it becomes untenable. That is not what I believe, and that is not what I'm contending.)

Satan’s plan in the premortal life was to redeem all mankind. God’s plan was to redeem all those who would choose to follow the Lord’s commandments. I wouldn’t say that Satan’s plan made it impossible to choose the Lord, it would merely force men to obey the commandments. Which wouldn’t make us righteous, or good, but it might redeem us. A man-made structure can certainly force us to do anything it wants to do, which is consistent with Satan’s plan. There is a question of whether Satan’s plan could have worked or not, but that is besides the point when discussing what Satan’s plan is, and how certain governments are attempting to implement Satan’s plan.

Marduk wrote:Your request, Vorpal, also presupposes that every board writer knows every possible contention to the points they will present. They are human. They will disagree with ideas based on their knowledge of them. Requesting that they give an argument about why a conservative ideology is necessary would be the same as asking you to give the liberal argument for why a liberal believes as they do. Just as they are incapable of fully comprehending an ideology that they disagree with, so are you.

Well, here is where you come to the purpose of this thread. I’m not asking for omniscience on the part of the Board (although there are those who say this statement is heresy), Marduk. I simply ask that they take due diligence to present the opposition’s point of view the best case they can. The doctrines I’ve talked about in relation to agency have been around for ages. Surely they must have heard of them, and know they were widely taught from the presidents of the Church on down. If not, it doesn’t take much effort to look it up using the Church literature search function. And surely they know better what capitalism is, what free-enterprise is good for, and the principle of tithing than they gave in their answers.

It is harder to comprehend an ideology we disagree with than our favorite ideology, I’ll grant you that, probably because studying it is distasteful to us. But I am just as much capable of understanding liberalism as I am capable of understanding conservatism. Anyway, I wasn’t always such a conservative. I was once considered quite a left-leaning liberal. I have full faith and confidence that the 100 Hour Board is quite capable of understanding conservatism, even if they disagree with it.

Gimgimno wrote:For the record, I wasn't trying to sound truly hateful or contemptuous. Angry? No. Mocking? Not quite. Sarcastic? I'll give you that one.

I think the whole reason why the "left side" of the Board is so outspoken is because they are such a minority here at BYU. They are accustomed to having to regularly defend their opinions from megaconservatives that don't know why they have the political opinions they do (whereas you do, vorpal). That can get frustrating. The conservatives are accustomed to being part of the majority mindset here and generally don't have to justify why they think the way they do. They don't need a outlet like the Board to express what they think and why like the liberals generally do.

That being said, I think this forum is getting too politically charged lately. We either need to make a new forum for political stuff or everyone just needs to cool their jets.

Okay, I believe you when you say you weren't trying to sound truly hateful or contemptuous.

I've thought about the reason the left-wing of the Board is more outspoken, and you may be entirely right. It is certainly reasonable. I'm not around campus much any more, so I don't know how conservative it is these days. You see my problem, only getting an insight into political thinking at BYU from what I read in the 100 Hour Board, this forum, the BYU alumni magazine, and my three children who are currently students at BYU. It is not an altogether conservative picture. I guess if I knew that everyone here already was familiar with the conservative arguments I make then I wouldn't feel so compelled to make them.

I have a couple of other experiences with forums that discuss political thinking. In those forums the conservatives don't say much, and most of the talking is done by the liberals. I'd say the conservatives are shouted down, if that doesn't sound too offensive to you.

Actually, I don't really enjoy politics. I'm a lot like Laser Jock. I've just felt I needed to defend conservatism. Like, somebody needs to do it. The thing I don't like about these discussions is that they become so contentious. And some of that is probably my fault. So, I wouldn't mind talking more about other things. On the other hand, nothing keeps me awake at night, wondering what to say next, than a political discussion.

First of all, this is my first time posting on here! So exciting!

Vorpal, while I was at work I had some thoughts I wanted to share with you:

You talk about capitalism like it aligns perfectly with God’s gift of agency, but capitalism is inherently coercive, not agentic. Pure, unbridled capitalism is SLAVERY. The only reason capitalism is palatable today is all the reforms that the progressive movement has brought to our country since the Industrial Revolution. Imagine if all these progressive reforms were repealed: no universal education, no healthcare spending, no social security, no labor laws, no environmental protections, no minimum wage, no civil rights movement, and no progressive income tax. We justified slavery by saying that black people were savage, so people thought there was no reason to liberate them, and I think similar things happen today with the lower class. Basically, pure capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism. We need something in the middle where everyone has access to critical things, but you don’t want to put control completely in the hands of government and abandon the free market either. We also need fiscal responsibility, which currently cannot be found in the Democratic Party leadership (or the Republican Party leadership for that matter). If you support welfare or war, you have to pay for it, and I think we need a constitutional amendment that requires balanced budgets.

I used to be a really hardcore libertarian, but over the last couple years I have gradually become much more progressive. So I think I have some understanding of where you’re coming from.