4 ms·

Why do conservatives want less regulations for bussineses but more regulations for people?

by ap3 10y ago

st3v3r 10y ago
Only for certain people.
judah 10y ago
Answer: We want less regulations all around so as to have a smaller government. The exception is when regulations prevent infringement on protected liberties. For example, we support the Bill of Rights' 1st amendment which states the government shall make no infringement on the free exercise of religion. That's a regulation that protects liberty, so we support it. And we are generally pro-life for the same reason: the Declaration of Independence states that every person has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since abortion snuffs out all three, we seek regulation that restricts it. The end goal is the same: smaller government, less powerful, with less impact on individual liberty.
- qball 10y ago
  >We want less regulations all around so as to have a smaller government. The exception is when regulations prevent infringement on protected liberties. So basically, bigger government. A smaller government would recuse itself and let the surrounding society punish infringement on protected liberties, which it already does quite well (example: do you, a San Francisco landlord, trust a racist renter over a non-racist one? And you know, because you looked them up on Facebook.) Aren't you the least bit concerned with the other sectors of your society, that don't necessarily come to the same conclusions as you, taking notice and doing the same thing to yours? What happens when the definition of "every person" isn't universal ("group of cells" defined in an arbitrary way for the Left, from conception for the Right), or when different groups are split between which one is more important (parent for the Left, unborn child conceived the "right" way for the Right)? Let's take another 1A example- freedom of speech. Both the Left and the Right have legitimate claims that exercise of certain kinds of speech damages the fabric of society. Their names and emphasis on certain parts are different, but the incidentals are otherwise identical (societies, like religions, are destabilized by blasphemy). But if we cave in and allow one subgroup's restriction, the other logically follows and every subgroup suffers- hard power is even more inflexible than an opposing subgroup's view of you/r group. So subsocities agree to disarmament; one group gives up the authority to ban stuff culturally justifiable in areas held by a different group, and vice versa. This is the other purpose of the Bill of Rights- all groups, including yours, need protection from the society around them. The fact that there's an amendment ensuring that groups can defend themselves with force if things really go wrong should speak volumes about how important and valuable that treaty is.

Why do conservatives want less regulations for bussineses but more regulations for people?

by ap3 10y ago

Why do conservatives want less regulations for bussineses but more regulations for people?

st3v3r 10y ago

Only for certain people.

judah 10y ago

Answer: We want less regulations all around so as to have a smaller government. The exception is when regulations prevent infringement on protected liberties. For example, we support the Bill of Rights' 1st amendment which states the government shall make no infringement on the free exercise of religion. That's a regulation that protects liberty, so we support it. And we are generally pro-life for the same reason: the Declaration of Independence states that every person has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since abortion snuffs out all three, we seek regulation that restricts it. The end goal is the same: smaller government, less powerful, with less impact on individual liberty.

qball 10y ago
>We want less regulations all around so as to have a smaller government. The exception is when regulations prevent infringement on protected liberties. So basically, bigger government. A smaller government would recuse itself and let the surrounding society punish infringement on protected liberties, which it already does quite well (example: do you, a San Francisco landlord, trust a racist renter over a non-racist one? And you know, because you looked them up on Facebook.) Aren't you the least bit concerned with the other sectors of your society, that don't necessarily come to the same conclusions as you, taking notice and doing the same thing to yours? What happens when the definition of "every person" isn't universal ("group of cells" defined in an arbitrary way for the Left, from conception for the Right), or when different groups are split between which one is more important (parent for the Left, unborn child conceived the "right" way for the Right)? Let's take another 1A example- freedom of speech. Both the Left and the Right have legitimate claims that exercise of certain kinds of speech damages the fabric of society. Their names and emphasis on certain parts are different, but the incidentals are otherwise identical (societies, like religions, are destabilized by blasphemy). But if we cave in and allow one subgroup's restriction, the other logically follows and every subgroup suffers- hard power is even more inflexible than an opposing subgroup's view of you/r group. So subsocities agree to disarmament; one group gives up the authority to ban stuff culturally justifiable in areas held by a different group, and vice versa. This is the other purpose of the Bill of Rights- all groups, including yours, need protection from the society around them. The fact that there's an amendment ensuring that groups can defend themselves with force if things really go wrong should speak volumes about how important and valuable that treaty is.