3 ms·

> Unlike libertarians, Conservatives believe that those who were the recipients of good fortunate have a moral obligations towards the rest of society, in parti

by rorrr 16y ago

> Unlike libertarians, Conservatives believe that those who were the recipients of good fortunate have a moral obligations towards the rest of society, in particular the people who do their best but just have less marketable skills. Wow, complete disconnect with reality. Conservatives are the ones who cut social programs repeatedly.

Detrus 16y ago
Probably talking about conservatives in Sweden, where it's the other way around. Anyway, now we just have to determine whether the money earned by high IQ people adds more/less long term value to our civilization than money earned by medium IQ people.
vaksel 16y ago
probably speaking about Europe conservatives in Europe would be considered commies in USA and for the liberals in Europe, they'd have to come up with another term completely...super commies perhaps?
- sandstrom 16y ago
  The word liberal have very different meanings in the US compared to Europe. The word in its classic sense is nowhere near the meaning it connotes in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism http://www.economist.com/node/3353324 http://www.economist.com/node/3353324
akkartik 16y ago
I think (I'm not a conservative) they see a difference between a moral obligation and a legal requirement. Between them deciding where to donate their money, and having big government make the decision for them. My sense is that conservatives tend to be good about that as individuals, but they don't notice that corporations are resistant to moral obligations. And corporations have a far larger (and more coherent) effect on society than individuals do.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Complete disconnect with reality. Plenty of mainstream US conservatives, at least in recent years, tend to increase spending on social programs. See Bush, Romney and Huckabee as examples of this. But lets ignore that for a moment. The fact that conservatives occasionally reduce the growth rate of spending on social programs does not mean they oppose said programs. Similarly, I might advocate ending the war on drugs, and reducing spending on police. That doesn't mean I'm against all policing. It merely means I believe the optimal level of policing is less than what it currently is.
amock 16y ago
Cutting social programs seems is in line with a moral obligation towards those less fortunate if it's a personal obligation. I know many people who dislike any kind of government welfare programs and many private organizations that do what those government programs are supposed to. They believe in helping those less fortunate through charity rather than being forced to pay.
orangecat 16y ago
It's not at all inconsistent to believe that there is a moral obligation to do something, and also that government should not force people to do it.

by rorrr 16y ago

Detrus 16y ago

Probably talking about conservatives in Sweden, where it's the other way around. Anyway, now we just have to determine whether the money earned by high IQ people adds more/less long term value to our civilization than money earned by medium IQ people.

vaksel 16y ago

probably speaking about Europe conservatives in Europe would be considered commies in USA and for the liberals in Europe, they'd have to come up with another term completely...super commies perhaps?

sandstrom 16y ago
The word liberal have very different meanings in the US compared to Europe. The word in its classic sense is nowhere near the meaning it connotes in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism http://www.economist.com/node/3353324 http://www.economist.com/node/3353324

akkartik 16y ago

I think (I'm not a conservative) they see a difference between a moral obligation and a legal requirement. Between them deciding where to donate their money, and having big government make the decision for them. My sense is that conservatives tend to be good about that as individuals, but they don't notice that corporations are resistant to moral obligations. And corporations have a far larger (and more coherent) effect on society than individuals do.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Complete disconnect with reality. Plenty of mainstream US conservatives, at least in recent years, tend to increase spending on social programs. See Bush, Romney and Huckabee as examples of this. But lets ignore that for a moment. The fact that conservatives occasionally reduce the growth rate of spending on social programs does not mean they oppose said programs. Similarly, I might advocate ending the war on drugs, and reducing spending on police. That doesn't mean I'm against all policing. It merely means I believe the optimal level of policing is less than what it currently is.

amock 16y ago

Cutting social programs seems is in line with a moral obligation towards those less fortunate if it's a personal obligation. I know many people who dislike any kind of government welfare programs and many private organizations that do what those government programs are supposed to. They believe in helping those less fortunate through charity rather than being forced to pay.

orangecat 16y ago

It's not at all inconsistent to believe that there is a moral obligation to do something, and also that government should not force people to do it.