For example, on issues like health care, lefties think it makes sense to pool our resources and ensure everyone is covered.

Kulongoski's inherently regressive Healthy Kids Initiative stands in stark contrast to that assertion, as does the wide support for it among the so-called Left's rank and file.

As for this intriguing post... I don't believe that it's hardwired at all. I think it's a matter of choice between selfishness and selflessness.

To illustrate... sort of: I used to be a conservative Republican back when I was young. I very much indentified and agreed with the conservative's "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mentality. But I was also a budding drug addict, unbeknownst to me at the time, and later found myself in an inhouse drug rehabilitation program centered around AA's 12-Step program.

One day while talking to my drug councilor it hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks that I very much wanted to be forgiven by those whom I had hurt, directly and indirectly, as an active drug addict. Immediately I made the connection in my mind that according to my political philosophy I wouldn't have forgiven me if I were those whom I'd harmed. That caused a somewhat catastrophic reexamination of all my previous premises.

I left that rehab facility 30 days later considerably to the Left of where I'd been when I entered it.

I don't doubt that science can detect and analyze brain chemistry difference between the selfish and the selfless, but that doesn't necessarily mean that those qualities are hardwired.

JMHO, of course.

Individualists, no. "Heirarchs", yes.

Like all pack animals, humans have evolved two primal instincts that usually work in conjunction, but sometimes conflict: a need to dominatate rivals, and a need to preserve the health of the pack.

We all have these instincts to some degree; conservatives are simply people who have a strong preference for the former, while liberals are drawn by the latter.

Domination, of course, requires a heirachy. Without a pecking order, who can tell who is better than who? The only problem for conservatives is that they can't agree on which pecking order is most important. Should you display superiority by conspicuous consumption (wealth)? Or should it be religious position (holier than thou)? Or perhaps the tone of one's skin (racism)? Or national affiliation (jingoism)? The possibilities are endless, which is a good thing. Without that division, liberals would be overwhelmed. Real altruism isn't very common. The need to prove one's genetic fitness to potential mates is.

Liberals, on the other hand, are driven the evolutionarily-tested truism that there is safety in numbers, many hands make light the work, and that ones position in a pack is worthless if the pack itself is on the verge of destruction. So they fight for things tha benefit the tribe/species as a whole: childcare, public education, environmentalism, non-violent resolution of conflict if possible, and the rare necessary war.

Yes, war. It is no accident that Democratic Administrations have an overwhelming record of winning wars, while Republicans lose them. Conservatives see war as a glorified extention of personal dominance, a fun way to prove "we" are better than "them". (This lasts until conservatives find that war isn't really "fun".) Liberals only persue war when they see it as a matter of societal survival; they only fight those they have to win.

The reactions to "An Inconvenient Truth" are characteristic of the two worldviews. One side sees irrefutable scientific proof that, unless our entire culture decides to do something soon, our species is going to severely damage the habatibility of our planet. The other side is greatly angered about even the mildest hint about reducing our use of oil, because after all, how will anyone pick up girls if they don't have a tricked out ride?

Such a narrow view may seem stupid. But evolution isn't concerned with intelligence. Only survival.

Harry Collectivism is the pooling of all resources for the common good. Sometimes by force (see Jos. Stalin, Vladimir Lenin & Fidel Castro).

In the Soviet Union, hard-line communists were called "Conservatives". And indeed, they were: there was an established heirarchy (in this case, Communist party affiliation), and they were in favor of keeping it. The people who brought down these conservatives? The Polish trade unions, social organizations that made few distinctions of rank between people. In other words, classic liberals.

Individualists, no. "Heirarchs", yes.

That's critical to the discussion. I'd say the "Right" might be seen as a mix of altruistic and giving "Heirarchs" like my Old Dad who is a Fundy Christian Monarchist. (God is the King and George W. Bush is his Viceroy on Earth).

He is personally fiercely libertarian in behavior and attitude, but will quite lterally give a needy person or family the "shirt off of his back" (or a car, or money, or whatever) although he himself is in the bottom socio-economic bracket.

His secular allies on The Right seem to me to fit Jeff's concept, high functioning sociopaths ala Boiler Room/Wall Street who argue that "everyone is out for themselves" and "greed is good".

I'm an 80% collectivist, and I tried to write this post in a way that didn't play favorites. (I have to say, it slants things a bit when neuroscientists give the names "egoist" and "altruist.") While I generally find generosity a great place to start from politically, collectivism has a big downside. Harry, though he did it clunkily, points out what happens by equality not tempered by liberty. Totalitarian regimes thrive when individuals subsume their ethics to the society.

On the other hand, there's a LONG distance between George W. Bush and Fidel. Like all of the industrialized nations, for whom collectivism is a no-brainer. I chose health care as an example because it seems so clearly to demonstrate the differences between "egoist" American systems and "altruistic" European counterparts.

Nothstine, thanks for the links--interesting.

For example, on issues like health care, lefties think it makes sense to pool our resources and ensure everyone is covered. Kulongoski's inherently regressive Healthy Kids Initiative stands in stark contrast to that assertion, as does the wide support for it among the so-called Left's rank and file.

Beg pardon? HK does exactly that-- further pool resources to ensure everyone is covered. And let's not pretend that it's just "the left" that gives the plan its support; after all, no one would assert that Oregon's population is 2/3 from "the left"--yet that's the level of support for HK. A fair chunk of Republicans and NAVs appear to be in favor as well.

We're ALREADY pooling our resources, but one group is taking out a highly disproportionate amount of those resources, and all HK does is ask for roughly 25% of it back.

Beg pardon? HK does exactly that-- further pool resources to ensure everyone is covered.

Sure, in the same way that taxing welfare checks to help provide food for children living in poverty would be a pooling of resources to ensure that everyone eats, or taxing section 8 housing funds to help provide housing for children living in poverty would be a pooling of resources to ensure that everyone has a nice warm place to sleep.

And let's not pretend that it's just "the left" that gives the plan its support; after all, no one would assert that Oregon's population is 2/3 from "the left"--yet that's the level of support for HK. A fair chunk of Republicans and NAVs appear to be in favor as well.

Thou do'st insult my intelligence. What percentage of Oregonians would have to foot the bill for HK? A quick whirl with the nearest calculator indicates that even some who wouldn't have to foot the bill disagree with it since 3/4 of Oregonians aren't in the target demographic.

Where exactly is the altruism in a demonstrably regressive tax scheme?

Your examples fail, Kevin, because section 8 and TANF are also entitlement programs. Smokers do not represent people getting free money. Furthermore, people on TANF or in Sec 8 housing are not imposing a social cost (beyond their receipt of funds, obviously); that smokers ARE imposing one is a large part of the reason child health needs funding in the first place.

I think you're insulting the intelligence of all Oregonians when you suggest they support it for some reason other than their belief that it's a fair and very logical way to pay for something Oregonians want badly to have.

I'm not sure where altruism caught connected to HK; it's social justice and sound economic practice, not altruism.

Kevin Where exactly is the altruism in a demonstrably regressive tax scheme?

Taxing cigarettes keeps children from getting addicted before they're old enough to know better. By doing so, their lives will be immeasurably improved, and in nearly all cases, lengthened.

The money, furthermore is not being kept, but redistributed to aid the health of children who, by being helped to avoid serious disease, will grow up to be stronger healthier members of our Nation and State. While there isn't a strict one-to-one correspondance, it is well known that societies that have health care are stronger than those that don't.

The human self-predators in this instance are the drug-dealers of nicotine, and the people (Republicans) who aid them. They care not one whit about the children who become addicted, their health problems later in life, or that our nation is weakened as a result. They only care about their personal benefit.

Steven: Taxing cigarettes keeps children from getting addicted before they're old enough to know better.

The relevant studies don't appear to support your contention. Everything I've seen indicates that raising the prices on cigarettes DECREASINGLY contributes to smoking cessation rates the lower in the socioeconomic demographics we examine. This in a demographic that is already disproportionately educationally and economically disadvantaged. Furthermore, I'd have to double check to see exactly where it's ranked but I believe you'll find that growing up in the home of one or more smokers is very STRONGLY identified as contributing to picking up the habit.

Don't delude yourself about what HK can do, let alone will do, in terms of smoking cessation. The more affluent and better educated the smoker, the more likely that rising cigarette prices will lead directly to quitting... leaving the very demographic that HK purports to want to help footing the bill for said help. It's an inherently regressive tax scheme.

Torrid: Furthermore, people on TANF or in Sec 8 housing are not imposing a social cost (beyond their receipt of funds, obviously); that smokers ARE imposing one is a large part of the reason child health needs funding in the first place.

That's a creative way of dancing around the socioeconomic facts for this demographic. One might even say that you've found a nice way of making a silk purse out of a Sow's ear.

At the end of the day HK is an inherently regressive tax scheme. Furthermore, HK does precious little to relieve the social cost you cite, thus betraying the stunningly obvious fact that that is merely a rationalization on your part. Not to mention the equally obvious fact that were HK to actually do anything meaningful towards relieving said social costs then Kulongoski et al would then have to find ANOTHER source of funding for those kids.

What you are saying, TJ, is that increasing the tax burden on a demonstrably educationally and economically disadvantaged population, cravenly relying upon their own addiction to keep the funds rolling in, is somehow "social justice" and "sound economic practice". I'm saying BS.

At the end of the day HK is an inherently regressive tax scheme.

Bollocks. Oregon will never fully recoup the health care costs associated with tobacco.

If it is true that increased cost to cigarette smokers will reduce cigarette smoking, thereby reducing revenue for the program, then it is also probably true that reduced smoking will lead to a decrease in health care expenditures for smoking-related illnesses which means that more revenue will be available for things like health care for kids.

Suggesting that healthy kids is bad public policy because it will reduce smoking is one of the weakest rationalizations I've ever heard for opposing a piece of legislation.

The bottom line is that we need to recoup health care costs associated with smoking, and we need to make sure that kids in this state have access to health care.

If healthy kids moves us in either direction -- and even opponents like Kevin admit that it does -- then I sincerely hope that the legislature will either pass this bill or refer it to Oregon voters.

I find this recent article from Psychology Today to be very interesting.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

Maybe it's less about altruism and egoism than it is about more basic personality traits.

Nice try, Jeff Alworth, at trying to make something out of this study it is not.

JD, I don't think you do much to put us back on track. The study is pretty clear about what the findings were, and they were plainly not about taxes--they were about altruism. As to JFK's intention, I think you're way off base, but for what it's worth,here's the text.

Michael, my comment about markets is a general one. I was trying to keep the attention on general philosophical principles, not descend into policy details (based on most of the comments on this thread, a failure). Health care was an example.

Suggesting that healthy kids is bad public policy because it will reduce smoking is one of the weakest rationalizations I've ever heard for opposing a piece of legislation.

There is an inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and smoking cessation rates associated with increased prices. Those that can BEST afford to pay the increased price are the most likely to QUIT instead of paying the higher prices. Every study I've seen indicates as much.

How is making those who can least afford to provide health care coverage for their kids foot the bill anyway by taking advantage of an addiction, that everything I've seen says that they are statistically the LEAST able to resist/quit on their own, good public policy? Especially when we know that there are other, much more effective ways of reducing smoking among this demographic.

Why am I, a moderate Independent, the one arguing against taking advantage of a disadvantaged group on a blog full of self-professed progressives? Where's this altruism that Jeff's post speaks of?

Former Oregon Congressman Jim Weaver wrote a book in the early 90s with a similiar thesis: Two Kinds: the Genetic Origins of Conservatives and Liberals.

Especially when we know that there are other, much more effective ways of reducing smoking among this demographic.

That's simply a false choice. There is nothing in the Healthy Kids Initiative that precludes anyone from implementing any number of strategies to reduce smoking rates.

As to the rest... I see no problem with making sure that people who smoke actually pay a measure of the health care costs associated with their smoking regardless of economic status. If it weren't for increased costs as a result of cigarette use, there would be more money in the system to insure vulnerable kids.

Given the choice between providing free health care for uninsured children and providing it for people who continue to use a product that is basically designed to kill them, I choose kids.

...unless the topic is global warming, whereby the Gore hucksters want to silence further debate by declaring scientific concensus.

Here's a standing deal I've made with people on this issue:

Give me a list of "skeptics" with a PHD after their names who has published on this issue, and I'll show you how the majority are funded, directly, or indirectly by oil and energy concerns.

I find altruism a funny basis for the proposition that taking my money (and the rest of my minority's money) on the vote of the unaffected majority.

A couple of comments...

Why should the majority subsidize health care costs related to smoking for smokers who don't have insurance?

Why should people who don't smoke pay higher insurance premiums to cover the costs of the people who do?

What makes you think that a conversation about recouping health care costs associated with smoking precludes a similar conversation about recouping social costs associated with drinking?

My recollection is that one solution to OHP funding that was floated in this legislative session involved increasing the tax on beer and wine.

Although I favor progressive taxes on income, and generally oppose a sales tax on the basis that it tends to be regressive, I am a big-time proponent of the idea that people who engage in behaviours that come with a price tag for the rest of us (i.e., smoking, drinking, etc) should pay their fair share of those costs.

If taxing cigarettes or alcohol reduces the consumption of such drugs, so much the better.

YMMV.

Collectivism does have its roots and previous experiences/failures with Jos. Stalin, Vladimir Lenin & Fidel Castro.

Bullshit.

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People" and says that one of the main reasons for the document is to promote "the general Welfare" and to secure liberty for "ourselves and our posterity".

Those phrases are nothing if not an expression of collective values.

Anyone who has recited the Pledge of Allegiance knows that collectivism is as much an American value as individualism.

What exactly do you think it means when you utter the phrase "One Nation, under God, indivisible"?

C'mon Sal, cigarettes are already heavily taxed and it's just tax revenue.

In this case, we're talking about tax revenue targeted to paying for health care costs. If you want to come up with a bill that does something similar for alcohol, as the House D's tried to do in this session for funding the OSP, then show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's good public policy.

I think Healthy Kids is good public policy if it:

1) decreases health care costs associated with smoking or 2) provides health care for uninsured kids.

Frankly, I could care less if you think that either of those positions is cynical, Chuck. I'll let you cogitate on the politics of the issue. What I care about is the public policy outcome.

Also, you didn't answer my questions:

Why should I subsidize the health care costs of people who smoke -- either through tax dollars or through increased insurance premiums?

What makes you think that having a conversation about recouping health care costs associated with smoking precludes a similar conversation about recouping costs associated with drinking?

Is there some reason why you oppose cigarette smokers paying their fair share of the social costs associated with smoking (I mean, other than the fact that you smoke)?

Is the above your notion of how D's can start working together instead of devolving into the politics of personal attack that the R's have worked into an art form?

Personal attack? Asking Chuck why my insurance premiums and tax dollars should go to subsidizing health care costs for smokers instead of kids, or whether the fact that he smokes plays a role in his position on this issue is a personal attack? And a Rovian attack to boot?

If you say so.

Why should the majority subsidize health care costs related to smoking for smokers who don't have insurance?

HK doesn't simply address smoking-related health issues nor is smoking the premise underlying it. #1. The premise is to provide comprehensive health care for kids whose parents can't afford to do so. #2. Broken bones, measles, chickenpox, sprained ankles, etc. are utterly unrelated to smoking.

Why should people who don't smoke pay higher insurance premiums to cover the costs of the people who do?

Are you seriously suggesting that smoking is anywhere close to being a primary cause of spiraling health care and insurance costs? Non-smokers will continue to pay higher insurance premiums, with or without HK, unless or until the primary causes of those spiraling costs is addressed.

What makes you think that a conversation about recouping health care costs associated with smoking precludes a similar conversation about recouping social costs associated with drinking?

Where's the conversation? Can you point me to anything Kulongoski or Oregon legislative Democrats have done or said to initiate such a conversation?

If taxing cigarettes or alcohol reduces the consumption of such drugs, so much the better.

HK undoubtedly will reduce consumption... some, and if past studies are any indication, mostly among those who can afford to pay the higher tax. Meanwhile it will further reduce the ability of the lowest socio-economic demographic to survive, much less to improve their lot in life, thus passing the buck to other aid type programs designed to help the least among us.

Your rational is of course nothing more than an excuse. The CDC's own website cites the Surgeon General's 2000 report thusly:

Educational curricula that address social influences (of friends, family, and media) that encourage tobacco use among youth, have shown consistently more effectiveness than programs based on other models.

Any serious attempt at reducing the social and economic costs of tobacco use will focus on statistically proven models for said reductions. HK simply doesn't meet that criteria. Indeed it relies upon a meaningful percentage of the very kids it purports to help picking up the habit in order to maintain stable funding.

HK doesn't simply address smoking-related health issues nor is smoking the premise underlying it.

This is an opportunity to provide health insurance for uninsured kids and to decrease social costs associated with smoking.

It's a win-win.

Are you seriously suggesting that smoking is anywhere close to being a primary cause of spiraling health care and insurance costs?

No. I'm saying that there are significant health care costs associated with smoking that are not being recovered, and that we will never fully recoup the health care costs associated with tobacco use.

Where's the conversation? Can you point me to anything Kulongoski or Oregon legislative Democrats have done or said to initiate such a conversation?

Do you mean besides the legislative debate in Salem, op-eds by prominent Democrats promoting the plan, data posted on the governor's web site, numerous town halls around the state, and efforts to build bi-partisan support, including the only Republican to hold a statewide office in Oregon?

Any serious attempt at reducing the social and economic costs of tobacco use will focus on statistically proven models for said reductions.

That's a pretty tough argument to make given that you've already conceded that Healthy Kids will likely reduce tobacco consumption.

Mass murder would reduce tobacco consumption. Are you suggesting that therefore mass murder would qualify as a serious attempt at reducing the social and economic costs of tobacco use?

Why don't you just be honest and admit that your primary concern is your pocketbook?

Thanks for illustrating my point guys.

I've made no assertions in this thread on the topic of global warming other than to say that if you post a list of qualified "skeptics" I'll show you that nearly all of them are financed, directly or indirectly, by energy concerns.

From Wikipedia: "According to Encyclopædia Britannica, "collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism."

That may very well be true. But it's also not what you said. You said that "Collectivism does have its roots and previous experiences/failures with Jos. Stalin, Vladimir Lenin & Fidel Castro.

Which is, of course, incorrect. "Collectivism" may have found "varying degrees of expression" in Castro, Lenin, et al, but "collectivism" certainly does not have its roots there.

The modern roots of what you are calling collectivism can be found in Tocqueville and Rousseau, but in a broader sense, collectivism has existed for as long as we humans have organized ourselves into social groups.

Collectivism -- a moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence -- also finds an expression in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and has been a present and powerful meme in American social and political consciousness for our entire history as a nation -- the most recent major American examples being the New Deal, the Great Society, and Long's "Share Our Wealth" campaigns.

Ignoring such facts because they do not fit within your ill-constructed frame is a poor substitute for meaningful dialogue.

Golly, you sure seem to have reached that decision quickly, and seem to be sticking to it.

Go figure.

On the collectivism argument. It's true that the Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions were motivated by a collectivist instinct, but you can no more blame the authoritarianism that followed on the altruistic impulse than you can fascism on the egoist one. It's an inflammatory argument that sheds no light. People are corrupt. Every human institution has an example of a hideous corruption. So what?