Freedom of Choice / Age / Why?

personally I think there needs to be a good balance between the two. YES there are certain things everyone should have, food, shelter, clothing, medical care. Do we need to revamp the systems that provide these things? HELL YES.

Will it happen with smart compromises? NOPE. Why?

Well think about how and why this country became an independent nation ... rich white men who didn't want to pay their taxes. Gee so much has changed in 236 years .... NOT.

I am 46. When I was (much younger) I believed that people should have to (and truly want to) work for everything they got, that only merit should be rewarded and that welfare was wrong (rewarded people for the wrong things). I always believed in choice, women's rights, gay rights and legalization of drugs. I have since come to believe that some people (children for example) did not chose to be born poor/disabled/ill and should not be punished for having parents who (see yesterday's question) did not know to use birth control And that starting off on a playing field that is not level is not something that everyone can overcome. And that many 'successful' people got there because the playing field is never really level.

I think we are not as a society ready to let people die in the emergency room if they show up without money. Since we will be paying for health care for kids (who are innocent of poor decisions) and people in the er (because it is distasteful and messy to not treat them) - we might as well bite the bullet, try to save some $$ and just make health care universal.

So to summarize - started off fiscally conservative and ended up a bleeding heart liberal. Both of my siblings too.

Don't know, but I am in group 1. And always have been. I am 43, now. But I was a "group 1er" when I was 20.... and paying my own way for everything I did.

And how 'bout that group that thinks the government should mandate that you DON'T get birth control, and thinks the government should determine the size of your family by forcing all women to keep any accidental pregnancies? These are often the same people who think health care should only be for people rich enough to afford it, and should not be available to all.

Nations with universal health care set up their societies and governments knowing that EVERYONE uses health care, and it's not affordable out of pocket in a profit driven system, therefore they made sure it was regulated and accessible to all. It's not some communist agenda being FORCED on people, and foreign citizens aren't dumb and entitled because they can go to the doctor when they need to without going bankrupt. None of my foreign friends would give up their high taxes (not much higher than ours actually) and medical coverage and free higher education to live here for a million bucks.

I simply LOVE the perspective that enabling people to access health care would be FORCING people against their will to have something all people need. In other words, an invasion of our rights. How the powers-that-be spun that one and got away with it is beyond me. This is an opinion usually held by people who have coverage through a job or spouse's job and don't have to pay for private insurance. Anyone paying for private insurance knows it is preposterous to expect everyone in the whole country to afford it. It also implies everyone is free to choose whether to afford insurance or not, which is insane when we all know what the most common salaries in the nation are.

Health insurance trumps all your other listed expenses by at least 10 to one. Even if you gave up all the tutors and lessons and extra groceries, health insurance would not be affordable unless you have a very high salary, which not everyone does. It doesn't mean they aren't valuable humans to our society. It just means they don't have a high salary.

I am 41. As an Air Force Brat who grew up on "free" tax payer supported government health care, and then moved to Europe, I have always believed in it, and still do. But I know we'll never have it here. I will never, however, become a conservative.

You have posed two false alternatives. These are not the only two ways of thinking, there can be a mixture of both, or some other third thing entirely.

In addition, essentially your question asserts that people will be socialist liberals until they are 40, and some form of conservative afterward, and that, obviously, is just not true.

There are usually many changes that come with age and "wisdom," but I personally would put them in the camps of becoming more mellow and accepting, vs. more uptight and set in your ways. This is the shift that I've seen in people in middle age and beyond, and it behooves us to strive for the former.

I think that a lot of people need to get over using the word "entitlement." That implies that people think they "deserve" something and I don't think that is the case here. I think the birth control mandate is common sense and is trying to make things easier and more accessible. I also think that easier access to birth control would help two things: we'd have less unwanted pregnancies and HENCE fewer babies that may end up on welfare and fewer abortions. Both of those things are concerns of the Conservatives but yet they refuse to see that a preventative measure such a birth control being easily accesible can help. Or maybe they do see but don't care. Because of women using birth control for a myriad of other reasons: fybroids, heavy periods, cramps etc. it needs to be covered under insurance and because of this, women often pay far more out of pocket than men. Anyway, I hope everyone understands that Churches are EXEMPT under Obama's law and it is only religioius institutions that hire others of different faiths/walks of life that are required to follow the mandate. I think there is some misinformation out there. Cheers!

Well I am 27 and def fall in to group 1 so i dont know if i am outside the norm for my age or not. I am not rich by any means, live paycheck to paycheck as a single mother of 2 toddlers but I dont feel entitled to anything because of it. I am a firm believer in working hard to get what you want.

I think you're setting up a totally false dichotomy in how you define your groups and would identify with neither.

But to go along with your fishing expedition...I am 36 and in your eyes would be in group two. I don't imagine that this will change over time.

Seems to me, based on 60+ years of watching people, that movement happens in both directions at similar rates. More than anything, where we end up on the socio-political spectrum is probably a function of our personalities, which affects our values radically. Which in turn affects who we hang out with, worship (or not) with, and empathize with.

Here's a fascinating Ted Talk on the subject: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_mo...

ADDED: Those who swing to greater conservatism as they age are very likely feeling more vulnerable and fearful as a result of life experiences. Those who swing toward greater liberalism are very likely realizing that we're all in this together, and there's greater protection nurturing the good of the whole group than in "rugged individualism." But at the bottom of it all? All of us long for some measure of security and safety, and all of us want to have freedom and independence. We just develop a different sense of how we can best gain that.

Well, I'm just turning 35, and I've been mostly in group 2 for as long as I can remember. I guess that's what my life experience has driven me. There are some things that I feel strongly that govt has no business being in...as another poster put it....my womb is my business.
However, the underlying problem with being strictly group 1, is that we, as Americans, are an arrogant culture that refuses to take responsiblity for our actions. By and large...there are of course exceptions to this statement. And when the failed decisions of group come to light, and they refuse to take responsiblity for it....it's always someone else's fault that I failed....it's group 2 that gets stuck with cleaning up their mess.

I'm some combination of both, leaning more on group 2. I don't see that changing. The older I get, the more I realize that we empower really clueless people at all levels of society to make bad decisions...and then ultimately, someone just cleans things up for them...whether it's welfare, the ER, or some corrupt broker on Wall St.

I personally believe this is more of a left/right, red state / blue state divide than an age divide. There are plenty of people who believe that the government should NOT tell a woman whether or not she can terminate a pregnancy and who simultaneously believe that the government SHOULD tell a corporation whether and to what extent it can release pollution into the atmosphere. There are just as many people who believe the exact opposite. Neither of these beliefs reflect a consistent attitude toward the government; they just indicate that people belong to distinct "communities of thought."

Of course, there is a smaller group of people who hold a consistently libertarian (and on the far left, anarchist) government-out-of-everything view. However, this group does not constitute a majority, on either the left or the right. If it did, Ron Paul would be running for a second term right now, or at least he would be leading in the primaries.

For whatever it's worth, I'm 40. My political beliefs have been fairly consistent since I was 9. Since I became an adult, though, I have tried to make a real and sincere effort to understand the views of people with whom I disagree. This hasn't changed my opinions, but I believe it is the right thing to do.

What your MOSTLY talking about, in psychological terms, is called a "Cohort Group". The tendency of a certain age group of people to be doing similar things and thinking similar things. It's a byproduct of both; culture one was raised in, experience gathered over the years, and "what your friends are doing" / aka peer pressure/ aka that we give people who are similar to us more influence over our lives.

It's been found to be a true concept across cultures and times... but that does NOT mean that "everyone of a certain age" does ________. What it does mean is that there WILL be a majority of people who all do/ say/ think similar things in certain age groups. There will always be dissenters AND there is no guarantee that age group A will be doing the same things as age group A2 (aka the next generation) or age group A in a different society.

((For example, in our society, it's normal for people to become more conservative the older they get. In OTHER societies it's normal for people to become more liberal the older they get. Regardless of what is "normal" for certain age groups... the Cohort Effect still applies))
___________________________________________

As far as denying the majority because a minority does not approve... I find that dangerous. When something is ALLOWED everyone has the choice to follow their own contents of their character. When something is disallowed it takes that choice by the individual away. I find it very dangerous ground to tread.

I think beliefs are a function of not ONLY age but life experience, too. We can start off one way and then have something--or someone--happen to change us.

As I've gotten wiser (er, older), I've become way more tuned into politics. Is it my age, or the fact that DH loves all the talking heads on TV? Maybe a combination.

But like many have said, I think I fall into a crossover between group 1 and 2. I have no problem with the government trying to make health care, which includes birth control, more accessible.

Can the government, i.e. Conservatives, tell me what to do wtih my reproductive organs? Heck, no!
The issue of birth control, IMO, is a heal

Updated

I think beliefs are a function of not ONLY age but life experience, too. We can start off one way and then have something--or someone--happen to change us.

As I've gotten wiser (er, older), I've become way more tuned into politics. Is it my age, or the fact that DH loves all the talking heads on TV? Maybe a combination.

But like many have said, I think I fall into a crossover between group 1 and 2. I have no problem with the government trying to make health care, which includes birth control, more accessible.

Can the government, i.e. Conservatives, tell me what to do wtih my reproductive organs? Heck, no!
The issue of birth control, IMO, is a heal

I'm 40 and I would be more than happy to pay more taxes in order to have a more universal health care for everyone. I grew up a kid of a hard working mom (ran her own real estate business and was always scrambling financially) who had no health insurance. She still has no health insurance. She just does not go to the doctor bc she cannot afford it and it is starting to cause some real problems now that she is getting older. :( I can't tell you the number of things she has needed done that she has avoided bc she feels she has no extra money and never chose to pay for health care. No basic check ups even for the last 30+ years. Ugh. I don't know the right answer but I think our current situation with health care is not working well.

What you are asking is a very large philosophical question.

I do not understand why your groups are mutually exclusive. I identify with both.

My personal definition of liberty is right along the same lines as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: "The right to swing my fist, ends where another man's nose begins." Which is to say, if I am not hurting anyone but myself, and I am willing to personally pay the consequences of hurting myself, then it's okay. In other words, your group one.

However, many, many generations of philosophical thought have gone into what a government DOES and SHOULD do. From hereditary clan chieftans to elected government officials, the main point has been that a government's responsiblity is to look out for the interests of its people, whether they be subjects or citizens. In other words, to ensure that the fist-swinging doesn't hurt anyone. Part of looking out the the interests of the people, is creating a baseline living standard. And that baseline standard is, basically, defining the metaphorical "nose." (You are free to walk down the street without being wantonly murdered, for instance, IS a baseline living standard. Ask anyone from a country where they are afraid to walk down the street.) I agree with that belief, that government should care for its people, so that also puts me in your group 2.

See? Not mutually exclusive.

The real trouble, as I see it, is defining where injury begins. In other words, where does your nose start? To take something a little less controversial, and slightly more cut-and-dried than the birth control or abortion debate, let's consider seat belt laws. You have to wear a seat belt. Why? Because medicaid and medicare recipients who are injured in car accidents harm the pocketbook of taxpayers. Because health insurance premiums for groups go up when there is a higher percentage of injured persons in the group. Because as vehicles are more widely used, an influx of severely injured persons overloads emergency rooms, delaying care for others. Because if the primary breadwinner of a family gets him(her)self killed, the family becomes someone else's burden. And so on...see? You could modify seat belt laws, to say that if you are injured in such a way that wearing a seat belt could have prevented the injury, then insurance or government assistance is not required to pay for your coverage, however, that would lead to a potential increase in disabled, destitute individuals, and that's just another nose. If you could word it in such a way to eliminate noses, well then, by all means, I am all for letting people skip seatbelts. I often find them uncomfortable, myself.

So the main problem, simplified, and really the only source of any debate over government - is if this decisions is preventing harm to others. If it does, fine. If not, then government has no reason to regulate it. The problem all goes back to defining the nose.

I think it's an age and life experience that sets the divide. When we are younger, we are more naive and believe that all people are good and that all people should have certain things.

As we get older, we realize how much these things cost the public treasurey and we become jaded against giving to those who have not contributed to that treasurey.

When I was young I felt the world should be perfect and everything should be free to people and everything should be fair. When I got older (I'm 48) and started making money and paying taxes, I realized where all the money for that free stuff came from -- me. And then I moved to Illinois and found out how corrupt democrats can be (and a few republicans too!) and I became jaded.

I now realize that the way we operate and what we are doing is not sustainable. Medicaid and Social Security will collapse unless someone from some party has the guts to fix them now. Illinois' pension system is a few years from total collapse (think Greece) and nobody wants to do the politically unpopular thing and fix it.

In a nutshell, that's how I feel. I think both ends of the spectrum (democrats and republicans) are run by self-serving lunatics who would rather just serve themselves than fix things.

I think it is a combination of many things and money has a part in it.

As you get older you look back at what you have done and what you haven't. You can look at things you have but your neighbors do not. You can look at things your neighbors have and you do not. Once you have made enough of those decisions you realize that it was a decision, a choice you had the right to make.

You are comfortable with your choices. You don't look at what your neighbor has and think I deserve that too because you realize what you would have given up to get it and you like that better. That is why you chose the one and not the other at the time.

I guess what I am saying is when you are young you have nothing but want, you haven't amassed things. Youth you want it all so the thought of getting it now sounds great. You don't realize that given the ability to choose you may not choose the same thing. You don't realize you are giving up the right to choose by accepting what is handed to you. When it comes to the government you don't even realize you are still paying for it.

Not sure if that makes sense.

Growing up I was told I was in camp B. That's because my mother was a freeloader and never worked a day in her life.

Growing up I lived where the government told us to live, ate government food when they told us we could eat, sat in disgusting government run healthcare facilities where the Doctors treated us like dirt and the wait was hours long, even with a 104 fever & strep throat.

But why the heck am I complaining, after all it was FREE.

I am in camp 1 and am staying there, although Obama is trying his hardest to force all us conservatives to move where he feels we should be.

I am only 34 and I have always been in group #1...so not sure about your 'age' reasoning?

I think it is age. The quote, "If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain," is often attributed to Disraeli or to Churchill. But is also purported to be first said by Francois Guisot, a French monarchist statesman: “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” (Said in reference to whether France should be a republic or a monarchy.)

It was later adapted by French Premier Georges Clemenceau: “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”

No matter who said it first, or adapted it from whom, I think it is true.

I know that as I have aged, I become more conservative. But I lean both ways, depending on the subject. To subscribe to only one view point is to limit your thoughts and options.

I agree with u I grew up with a poor single mother too who was on public assistance and I don't believe that government should be paying for birthcontrol it crosses boundaries that don't belong crossed I practice natural family planning and don't agree with birth control for many reasons including side effects etc but many insurance companies want to prevent pregnancy for their own reasons not that they want to help women they want to save themselves money. I just see insurance taking on more and more issues resulting in higher costs and much higher taxes as well as causing religious institutions including schools and hospitals to shut down because they cannot support it.

They say that "the older you get the more you realized what you can't do." I think the older you get, the more you experience and change your mind. People change their minds about lots of stuff all during their lives without ever noticing it. Children change what they want to be when they grow up, then get to college and become undecided. Changing your mind is all about perspective and how you view the wisdom you've gained through experience or stories you hear from other people and the media. Me....I've always believed in freedom of choice and being different. It is not up to me to judge what other people do. I can only decided what I personally would do in the situations that occur. The funny thing is, that we can only imagine what we would do. Then when or if a situation happens, we often do the opposite. Why? Because different things come up to make us see things differently. That means that while some people would never think of BC or abortions, others might due to their circumstances. I would never tell someone else what to do. It is not my right to do that. Only God can judge.