The California Exodus

Proclaiming yourself rational doesn't prove it so. Not even with a bloviating, multi-syllabic avalanche of overwrought bullshit.

No, they aren't. And you bring up a true and very important point here, on several levels.

I note, for example, that that is the number one reason for which people reject the notion of God. (Which is not at all the same thing as rejecting religion. Pretty much all religion deserves to be rejected.) They say: "If God existed, we wouldn't have so much suffering in the world." IOW, if God exists, he owes it to us to make things nice for everybody, regardless of how we behave.

People tend to extend that to whatever "higher authority" exists in their worldview: God, society, the boss, parents... whatever. But they are wrong. No one "owes" us anything.

I reject the notion of giving undeserved help to selfish, lazy parasites who simply want to take advantage of other people's efforts. And they do exist, even though they are not nearly as widespread as some political philosophies pretend.

But even though neither I nor anyone else owes it to anyone to help them, it is a mark of high character to help those who are unfortunate. In theology, we call that grace. In society, we call it charity. In human behavior we call it altruism. Whatever you call it, it is something incredibly noble that those who are only interested in their own well-being can never know. A person, or a society, that dares to exhibit it will always be better than those who reject it simply because they don't "owe" anything to the unfortunate.

I have worked pretty much my entire life at minimum wage. I am not even close to what Western society would consider "rich". Yet one of my greatest privileges is being able to help those in Third World countries who are dirt poor. No, I don't "owe" it to them. I don't owe them anything. (And I am never particularly inclined to help those who demonstrate by their words or attitudes that they think I do owe it to them.) I am very happy to give up some of my time, effort and money (which means: some of my freedom) for the collective good. It's not a choice everyone makes, and no person or society has to make it. But the admiration of the world and the approval of history will always be for those who do.

True.

Some of the best poutine I’ve had was in Canada.

This was in no way a strawman.

There are a finite amount of resources in any given society, a finite amount of prestige, a finite amount of status, influence, money, success, jobs, that are possible to attain. Surely this is obvious?

If I get a certain position or status, that means someone else does not. It simply isn't possible for everyone to ascend within society simultaneously. Surely that too is obvious?

Once I have gained a more advanced position it becomes more likely that I will progress still further, because I have greater means and influence. Again, surely obvious?

Therefore if society is not structured in such a way as to level the initial playing field those whop start life with a headstart will statistically tend to outperform those facing obstacles. If you can't see this is obvious please try to imagine one Donald J Trump being raised in a trailer park and becoming POTUS on merit.

Given all of the above factors it follows that any society which actively seeks to avoid leveling that playing field will see greater disparity (ie, a conservative one, one which conserves the existing social order) than one which does the converse (ie one which places greater responsibility on government to reduce inequalities), which is exactly what we see in practise.

There's a reason PoC face lower average incomes, higher chances of incarceration, lower life expectancy, greater risk of violent deaths and lower educational opportunities and it's not because they aren't trying.

I love your outlook, but this part, while true, is somewhat misleading.

Yes, it is finite. But it is not fixed. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

Of course, that does not negate your fundamental philosphy. In fact, it strengthens it, though the demonstration is not simple.

History shows clearly that an increase in total "advantages" (to lump all those things you mention together) has a positive or negative effect on the stability of society, depending on whether or not the masses profit from them, or only an elite. Conservatism (which can ultimately be defined as the elite fighting to preserve its advantages) is always, in the long run, a losing proposition. When total wealth increases but the "wealth gap" between the masses and the elite does not close, it is like a lorry with a heavier and heavier load that, instead of being spread out, is concentrated in a small area. Sooner or later that is going to destabilize it.

If society cannot adapt to changing circumstances, society will develop tensions that will finally lead to some sort of discontinuity. And "adaptation" is the very antithesis of conservatism.

Perhaps I misplayed my hand here a little to be honest.

You couldn't be more right, wealth as a numerical measure of money and resources can objectively rise, but I was angling more for how ownership of those tangibles represent one visible aspect of intangible successes.

Humans primarily measure our worth by status, by our position relative to each other. We've done that since long before we first thought of exchanging little shiny bits of metal for food, clothes, sex, whatever.

That, by definition, does indeed require my gain to be your loss because status is about how we shuffle up and down a pecking order. By our very natures we see more as better, we don't easily self regulate because deep down in our genes there's a drive telling us to dominate the next guy, to prove how big, clever, resourceful, tough we are because the higher we are in the pecking order the better our chances of getting food, mates, loyalty. All the things we need to survive and reproduce.

In modern economies our behaviour is still that primitive. We're cavemen in a world of computers. We struggle with the reality of self regulation so no matter how much we talk about ideals of not being materialistic that bigger car, bigger house, nicer shirt matters to us. It's our way of saying "look at me, look how well I'm doing, what I've EARNED".

It's not about needing, or even benefitting from, those objects, they're symbols, a virtual contest against our neighbours.

There's a reason crime is higher in areas of dramatic socio economic disparity.

Unless society reigns that instinct in (that is to say, regulates it) it inevitably leads to the situation you so rightly describe. Small disparities become ever larger with the very fact of one advantage making the next more accessible.

so did you carve the lawn mower from scrap wood with a broken bottle you found on the side of the road, or did someone provide you with a lawn mower.

did you drag it door to door, negotiating rates or did your parents and neighbours offer you the opportunity?

speaking of them... stable home till you were an adult? get enough to eat?

what you can't seem to comprehend is that not everyone gets to grow up in the mid west, middle class, mundanity you did.

I suggest recording a poorly edited YouTube video, he might be more receptive to that.

Is it finished yet? Have California’s 40 million residents completed their exodus? Am I the last one left? Have I been left....behind?

What you can't seem to comprehend is that those economic and social conditions are influenced by the policies of local and state governments and that people constantly leaving the same place for another MIGHT be an indication that one is working and one is not. They're certainly not leaving California for Arizona because of the weather.

You are the OmegaFaceMan.

What ate the demographics of those leaving?

Seems to me that earlier the suggestion was it was definitely those in the top pay bracket.

As an aside, I don't think that's the objection at all - at least, no one I know has ever made that objection.

And that's clearly a misstatement of the classical philosophical quandary of the 'problem of evil.'

The problem is the constant assertion in Christianity (less so in Judaism or Islam) that God is absolute love. That is the disconnect.

You can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and create the world we live in.

You certainly can't reconcile that with other actions in the bible, such as the flood or the deaths of the first borns of Egypt. Let alone the concept of hell (granted that's evolved over time). Or statements that God is a jealous God.

We know that doesn't reconcile with all-loving.

This has nothing to do with what we are 'owed', but the fallacy of the premise.

It’s been a while but what you describe as conservative I was taught was reactionary. Conservativism is not anti-change but instead is anti-change for change’s sake. Changes must be to solve a recognized problem and the solution should be evidence based.

The modern day Republican Party is reactionary, not conservative.

At least under the scale I learned a quarter century ago, if I am remembering correctly.

pretty sure that wasn't what I was responding to...

I think it was Poodle for a while had a sig line how the Republicans had to be a party of "Hell, no"...

Maybe you don't hear it, but it's the objection I hear the most often. By far.

And the rest of your post is just a nicer way of putting it: "God can't exist, because if he did he would be much nicer than the way I perceive him." But it comes down to the same thing, ultimately.

I think a lot depends on the teacher given that the origins and definitions of these terms are less than legalistic in their precision.

The origins of a left-right scale (which ultimately is a complete fabrication as presented today) has it's roots in the various iterations of the national legislature in Revolutionary era France, where the literal sitting positions of the representatives became associated with their relationship to the throne.

Those who considered themselves traditionalists (ie those who opposed changes to the Constitution) sat on the right. "Conservative" was coined literally as an insult thrown by those on the left at their opponents, much as "trumpista" or "libtard" are used today, so at root the literal meaning of the word was "those who resist change" and most thesaurus' list "reactionary" as a synonym.

The water is obviously muddied by international differences in how left and right manifest. You probably know that conservatism here looks very different to the US and we have multiple parties on both "sides", not infrequently crossing the centre where policy platforms and political expedients don't fit neatly into an ideological box. Nonetheless conservatism is by definition:

1. Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values, or:

2. Favouring free enterprise, private ownership and socially traditional ideas.

(I'm using my phone and still haven't mastered linking and quoting on a touchscreen)

That seems to me to sit quite neatly with my understanding as conservatism as being at root about resistance to change and maintaining existing social constructs, especially given the historical origins, the repetition of the French pattern throughout international conventions and the integral association with Monarchy Aristocracy and good ol' organised religion.

Thoughts?

I'd posit it's more that "if God existed and actually abided by the rules he sets us, he'd be a decent guy". But I strongly doubt that's actually the reason most atheists don't believe in God, more to do with lack of evidence.

It's the point of this thread.

If you're going to bring up the environment that people grew up in order to make a point, then it's only fair to counter with asking what policies led to that bad environment.

I didn't bring it up though... rather, I was responding to a claim.

but you knew that (assuming you read the entire post?)

Bad environment for whom?

Again with the demographics....

No, it indicates he's given contradictory characteristics by the source material. It's not just he clearly isn't all-loving, and in many cases he does things that are absolutely vengeful. That doesn't have anything directly to do with him being 'nice', it has to do with both things can't be true at the same time. But he also doesn't act all-knowing, nor all-powerful. Unless the bible is filled with large numbers of fabrications. In which case, why believe it as a source?

As your take on my statement was just to reiterate your premise when I stated explicitly that wasn't my point, it makes me wonder how often you do that to others. Because I didn't say what you just heard. You chose to hear it that way.

Oh shit, I can cruise down I-5 and up the 99 doing 120+ now? Sweet

Al gets up at 6 a.m. and fills the coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of her medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Al gets it too.

He prepares her morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Al's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the shower, Al reaches for his shampoo. The bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Al dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks to the subway station for a government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Al begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Al's employer pays these standards because Al's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Al is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose hishome because of her temporary misfortune.

It's noon and Al needs to make a bank deposit so she can pay some bills. Sue's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Al 's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Al has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Al and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Al is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in her car for the drive. Her car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.

He arrives at her childhood home. His generation was the third to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see her father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Al wouldn't have to.

Al gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Al enjoys throughout his day. Al agrees: "We don't need those big-government avocado-toast eating liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm self-made and believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

@Spaceturkey I admire your commitment to only changing half the pronouns.

wouldn't want to presume gender

That's how I remember UA too. He hasn't changed, the rest of us grew up.

IIRC, I seemed to remember UA being pretty young--like "still legally unable to drink at their own wedding" young-- when he got married and stating he and Mrs A were as poor as church nice for ages. So ..very likely not middle class (as if we even have such a thing in America anymore).

From what I remember of UA back in the day, he was a big proponent of libertarian policies to the point of saying he preferred them even if they produced worse outcomes for all involved.

So like Paladins FYGM approach, but without the GM.