Mike : You certainly "get" the idea of Radical Centrism. I don't think anyone here could have said it better. Not at all clear, however, what the relevance is to social conservatives and values issues. Kevin also made the point that these kinds of issues matter to many, many people. How the government treats the less well off ( or the poor as such ) is mostly, at least as I see it, more a question of economics and incentives. Is there anyone who regards it as moral to injure the well being of Americans who live at poverty levels ? Seems to me that, about this, there is no moral issue at all, just a means/ends issue, how to get the best result in terms of $$ for both gvt and individuals. Generally, if not overwhelmingly, "values" refers to a very different set of issues, call them "hot button" if you prefer. They have this designation precisely because of emotional responses they arouse. Billy ----------------------------------------------------------- 11/10/2011 2:10:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
This all goes back to "arete" with me. Whether the government or private charity goes toward keeping the destitute alive, the homeless situation leaves the same economic drag either way. The false choice here is between the liberal idea of keeping a permanent underclass just barely alive, or the conservative idea of denying the legitimacy of the problem. Rather, I'd argue for a safety net that brings the destitute back to the starting line by medicating, providing the bare minimums, etc., but, in contrast with the current safety net, has an expectation of performance in return. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
