Plano Texas Politics

August 3, 2009

Do I Value People?

Why of course I do! I recently had someone comment saying that I must not care about people because of my political beliefs. He said: “The more I read of your politics guys, the more I am forced to conclude that  you simply do not care about people at all”

I will answer this question with a quote from Frederic Bastiat:

“[People] might as well accuse [me] of wishing men not to eat, because [I] object to the cultivation of corn by the State.”

I love the American people, but I do not believe that we, as Americans, need to be babied. We are the men who pushed back the British when they infringed upon our rights, we regained the south when they tried to succeed, we fought back the Axis in WWII. We must once again stand up for our own rights, but this time without bloodshed. We are Americans! We have never needed babying! We can fend for ourselves! And we can help those who fall by the wayside of our own free will, not by force. We are not obligated to help others, we are not forced to, but we can! We can of our OWN FREE WILL. We do not need the government to tell us when we are morally obligated to help people. It is OUR OWN DECISION! We are free men!

~James Dalley



  1. That was my quote (which seems to have disappeared off the comments section, sadly). And I stand by it. Here’s why:

    Your metaphors are all centred around conflict. They are all couched in war, ideals and revolution. Many of your posts are symbolic in nature.

    Where they fall down is in the “but what do your propose?” department. I’ve read your blog on and off for a few weeks now and I still have no idea what viable solutions you have at hand. I know what you’re against, who your designated enemies are and the symbols you believe in. But that is not enough.

    What distinguishes the conservative and liberal political views generally is simplicity versus complexity. Simplicity says “these are our values” and makes decisions always in reference to those values. Complexity says “a lot of people have a variety of values” and makes decisions that try to accomodate everyone.

    As a result, conservatism is the best political philosophy to have in wartime because there’s just not enough time to pander to everyone. By the same token, liberalism is the best political philosophy in peacetime. Conservatives want to turn everything into a war (“War on Drugs”, “War on Terror”) where Liberals want to turn everything into a solution.

    So when I said “you simply do not care about people at all” I didn’t mean to imply callousness or evil, but rather too much attention on symbolism and not enough on problem solving. What you want is for the problems of the US to be as simple as wars, where winners and losers are clearly defined. Wars are symbolic, however, and not about people. Hence they do not fundamentally *care* about people.

    A good example is the War on Drugs. This is a conservatively minded policy to deal with drug problems that effectively involves a series of symbolic positions derived from values. It is quite military in its overtones and consists of a crime/punishment approach.

    The War on Drugs is also a complete failure. The US has a much higher percentage of prisoners than most countries, most of them on drugs charges, and yet drug addiction and crime are still very high. Drugs, it turns out, are not a problem that can be solved with a war. Values-based decisions don’t work out so well. Conservatism in general cannot get behind the idea that values must change, that actually the way to deal with drugs problems is probably a lot of legalisation and community focused addiction support.

    The conservative approach to drugs fundamentally regards it as a war of ideas rather than a people problem. It does not care about the people involved as such.

    Hope that makes it clearer.

    Comment by Simon — August 4, 2009 @ 7:15 am | Reply

  2. Since you want to know what my solution is I’ll tell it to you.
    My solution is to have the government do nothing.
    I do not have the right to tell the doctors what they can and can’t do, but in my ideal world we would have charity hospitals and other programs similar to that. These programs would of course be made by the people and for the people, without any government intervention. The doctors would flourish, the patients would flourish, and the free market would flourish, and most importantly the government would not have any influence upon health care.
    ~James Dalley

    Comment by jdalley — August 9, 2009 @ 7:37 am | Reply

  3. But this isn’t an ideal world where everyone works through charity and we don’t need a government because everyone co-operates and there’s no attempt to abuse power. There are real problems. And while most people could afford healthcare and feed themselves, not everyone can, and it’s rarely not very difficult to do so.

    Comment by recaiden — August 14, 2009 @ 5:22 pm | Reply

    • It is only because this is not an ideal world that I am against government health care, because the government is even more unforgiving and corruptible than men are. I do not think that such a system would benefit the people. We the people are getting short changed! We need good health care not free health care.

      Comment by jdalley — August 14, 2009 @ 6:28 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: