Well, what your saying is like saying, "I'm a christian, but since I'm in the world, I'm going to do as the world does!", which is a contradiction of the christian teachings.
I really don’t agree with that analogy. Religion and ideology are all about power, but of vastly different realms. You can’t compare the godly, heavenly religious principles of purity to the realistic, humanistic ideological principles of self-sufficiency and economic/political growth. First of all, it is so incredibly easy for the average Christian person to commit an act that society views as contradictory to the convictions of Jesus Christ (and for the record, I’m an atheist). On the other hand, there is no godly figure in Libertarian philosophy that would require each and every libertarian to follow. With the extremely wide range of views held by so many libertarians, it’s almost nonexistent-so to speak- as a cohesive political identity. This is also often true of other political philosophies. Every political identity is based on personal, custom-fit individual principles.
Practicing what you believe in, is honor. If you say you are a conservative, yet spend liberally, you are contradicting your own system, therefore have no honor. I think that is what your grandfather would be displaying by openly criticizing Nixon. Of course, if he buys Chinese goods, he then has no honor.
I was just playing devil’s advocate. I don’t really think he’s a hypocrite, but simply misguided in understanding the role free trade plays between China and the United States. He views it as extremely negative that Chinese imports are killing so many American jobs (protectionism), but he frankly doesn’t understand that the benefits of the availability of cheap, easy-to-obtain consumer items outweigh the negative losses resulting from the downsizing of a manufacturing industry.
As far as your cousin, she is helping. Nursing is a very tough career, and 80k a year is in my opinion a little minute for the things she deals with on a daily basis.
There is no argument that nursing is a tough career. But that can also be a very one-dimensional outlook on the profession. And you may consider 80+K a year minute and support a raised salary of 100+K or more a year, but even my cousin believes nurses are overpaid. She also believes doctors are overpaid. Nurses, like my cousin, work an average of 42 hours a week, about 2 hours more than the national average. But they often only work 3 or 4 days out of the week. Both of my cousins enjoy the different hours. The work is tough and the critical care of life is very stressful. But, on the other hand, nurses experience one of the most exciting, interesting, enjoyable, and self-rewarding careers on the planet. Though there are, at times, a nurses shortage (there’s currently a glut in SoCal), there never seems to be a lack of people who genuinely want to be nurses (they just don’t because they don’t have the expertise, ability, or confidence).
What she is doing is fulfilling her need to help others, while maintaining her own goals and aspirations in her private life. Nothing inhumane about that, I would honor it.
True, but basing the assessment using her own founding principles, we view an entirely different picture. A nurse who supports a free and equal health care system for all and who condemns those who make profit off the sickness of others is, herself making profit (some may subjectively consider obscene) off the sickness of others. The “helping others” is not a cheap service, let alone a free one. Her take-home profit is paid by the sick patient and the insurance company (who, in turn receive their money from patients) and taxpayers.
You do not have to go to the extreme to practice what you believe, but you do have to stay within the guidelines of what you believe, otherwise, you are a hypocrite, and have no honor!
And the question we’re here to consider is do I stay within the guidelines of what I believe. I don’t support the continued high subsidies with lax forgiveness laws but that doesn’t mean I blame individuals for taking advantage of what is in their best interest. For my benefit, I am now a college student, and a part of a larger interest group. Though I vote to eliminate subsidies for special interest groups, I also do not blame the self-interest of the individual to purse the better, more affordable option. If the politician drops a sum of taxpayer money on homeless people, students, and homeowners, I don’t blame the individuals for pursuing their natural self-interest within the boundaries of the law, even if their decisions cost the taxpayer.
"They do it too" is no defense. One major aspect of libertarianism, which absolutely, positively must be adhered to in order for someone to believe true libertarianism has a snowball's chance in hell of working is that of personal responsibility for one's actions.
There’s nothing personally irresponsible for taking advantage of federal student loans which are A) legal and B) offer a better interest rate than any other loan. It would be irresponsible to not repay it.
The libertarian point of view relies heavily on the concept of self-regulation. When libertarians themselves fail to self-regulate, they expose the flaws in the mindset.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with regulation. I would be forced to adhere to regulation whether I took a private or public loan.
Of course not. But if they willingly and unapologetically toss aside their ideals in order to recevie personal gain, they are proving that the ideology has no basis in reality.
Libertarians, at least the ones who value property rights, understand the basis of human nature and the pursuit of self-interest. It is in the best interest of the individual to accept free money (grants) and subsidized loans in order to finance their education. It is, on a very individualistic level, a highly beneficial path to financial success…and Libertarians very much value individualism and rational self-interest.
cop out, all the way. it doesn't matter what your cousin does, or what your grandfather thinks. what matters is that you do, or you do not, feel you are compromising your beliefs.
you cannot defend your choices using other's actions. and btw, it's perfectly possible to be a liberal and also a capitalist.
I am not defending my choices using other’s actions. I’m instead trying to demonstrate how irrational the logic is behind the accusations of hypocrisy. In all honesty, I do not think my grandfather, cousin, or myself are at all hypocritical for pursuing their own rational self-interest. I don’t believe I should have to defend myself at all.
As for being a liberal and also a capitalist, I do not disagree. But I can’t help but putting such obvious contradictions on the same plane as my issue with accepting federal loans. I don’t think any of us are hypocrites, just dependent on certain values while we rely on systems of opposing ideals.
Whether or not he's a hypocrite I think as taxpayers we all need to demand a refund on this man's education.
That’s a crude statement. Would you care to participate in the debate or just sling mud?
So you're libertarian except when it's inconvenient?
I don’t view it as contradicting my convictions. There’s a difference between tolerating the individual’s pursuit of rational self-interest and abhorring the group’s pursuit of special interest subsidies. The recipients are not to blame for the subsidies, nor is it surprising that they would accept the subsidy (that they help pay for in taxes). After all, if I’m forced to pay for it, even if I don’t support it, is it morally wrong to benefit for a program I helped to pay for?
As a fellow taxpayer I don't suppose you'd mind telling us where that federal money is going towards? As in, what kind of education are you getting in what field?
The answer to your question is a B.A. in Public and Oral History and a M.S. in Library and Information Sciences with an emphasis on archival studies.
I don't see the need to label you. I can see it as a little hypocritical. But that only matters in a vacuum. This is the real world, and we have to live in it. Granted, I think it's a bit naive to reap the benefits of the system and then turn around and condemn it. It works good enough for you, but no one else should be able to obtain the same benefits you did? Actually, it really just seems selfish. You want everyone else to pay for your education, but then you don't want to contribute to help others. I'd like to remind you that you are not special, and don't deserve to have things that others do not.
Ideologically, no, you're fine. You have to play the game the way it is. But in practical terms, if you had your way, you would benefit and others would suffer. So I guess you're not a hypocrite, just a selfish prick.
Edit: I realize the start and end of this post don't match. I started out intending to defend you, and then thought about it some more and got angry.
First of all, I hope those penalty points don’t put a cramp in your style. Second, you’re completely distorting my views. I vote to reform, overhaul or completely repeal the federally subsidies loans. If such a proposal succeeds and becomes law, then no such loans would be available to any American, not excluding myself. And nowhere did I ever state that those today receiving student loans should forfeit their financial aid while I retain it. This is not an issue of exclusive, elitist control over spending. Instead, I motion to reverse spending for everyone, including myself. No exceptions.
